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 CORPORATE AND 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.

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.

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
SEAVIEW AND NETTLESTONE	Woodlands Vale Lodge, Calthorpe Road, Ryde, PO331PN	TCPL/24931	6.	APPROVAL
RYDE SOUTH EAST	land between Weeks Road &, Ashey Road, Ryde	TCP/05746/H	1.	REFUSAL
LAKE SOUTH	Greenfields, Newport Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO369PE	TCP/07201/V	2.	REFUSAL
SHANKLIN CENTRAL	Fiveways Hotel, 1 Hope Road, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO376EA	TCP/17825/A	5.	APPROVAL
ST JOHNS EAST	land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde	TCP/24977	7.	REFUSAL
VENTNOR WEST	Park Lodge, Park Avenue, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381LE	TCPL/11399/B	3.	APPROVAL
VENTNOR WEST	Park Lodge, Park Avenue, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381LE	LBC/11399/C	4.	APPROVAL

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BINSTEAD	part OS Parcels 4261, 5760 and 6360, off, Newnham Road, Ryde	TCP/14537/E	12.	REFUSAL
BRIGHSTONE AND CALBOURNE	Kevin Mole Outboards, Ashengrove, Swainston, Calbourne, Newport,	TCP/06137/X	8.	APPROVAL
BRIGHSTONE AND CALBOURNE	Part OS 0091, Hulverstone Lane, Hulverstone, Newport	TCP/25117	18.	APPROVAL
CENTRAL RURAL	land at Little Gatcombe Farm, Gatcombe, Newport, PO303EQ	TCP/19227/B	13.	APPROVAL
COWES CASTLE EAST	Strainstall UK Ltd 23-27, Denmark Road, Cowes, PO317TB	TCP/12658/G	11.	APPROVAL
EAST COWES SOUTH	1a Clarence Road, East Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO326EP	TCP/25201	19.	APPROVAL
FAIRLEE	23 Fairlee Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO302EA	TCP/20381/H	15.	REFUSAL
NEWPORT NORTH	area known as St. Thomas Square and part of, St. James Square, Newport	TCP/19429/C	14.	APPROVAL
RYDE NORTH EAST	land rear of Tilden House Nursing Home, fronting, East Street, Ryde	TCP/24633	16.	APPROVAL
SHALFLEET AND YARMOUTH	land adjacent Jubilee Villa, Tennyson Road, Yarmouth	TCP/11078/A	10.	REFUSAL
TOTLAND	land adjacent Fourstones, The Mall, Totland Bay	TCP/07258/E	9.	APPROVAL
TOTLAND	land adjacent Culverdene, Church Hill, Totland Bay	TCP/25088	17.	APPROVAL

Large residential scheme that complies with planning policy but has been requested to be brought to Committee by Local Member.

Large open area of land (4.67 ha) currently covered in long grass. Established boundaries on all sides with new access being formed by recent residential development to the southwest. East is cordoned by Weeks Road which is an attractive "woodland" path. The north by allotments, the west by open land leading to normal planting associated with the rear curtilage of houses on Ashey Road. The south is woodland.

The application site shows access from Ashey Road much of which is in the process of being constructed.

The land falls to the east, south and north with the highest land approximately in the middle west. Land to the south has been cleared for foul drainage pipes.

TCP/5746/E - Outline for 21 detached & 6 terraced dwellings approved 18 August 1999 with a Section 106 Agreement. Section 106 Agreement covered payments of £17,194 towards the design of a community facility and £3,450 towards the cost of traffic measures.

TCP/5746/F - Outline including siting, landscaping and access for 10 semi-detached and 6 terraced houses rear of 31-35 Ashey Road. Allowed on appeal 19 November 1999 including a unilateral undertaking regarding payment towards a community facility and traffic calming measures.

TCP/5746/G - Outline for residential development and associated access part OS 1238 and 135. Refused the 16 February 1999.

TCP/5746/J - Land north of Village Green, Rosemary Lane, west of Weeks Road with access between 41 and 45 Ashey Road. Withdrawn 18 June 2001 (reduced site area to tie in with North East Wight Local Plan).

TCP/5746/K - Relating to the reserved matters of 'E' above. Approved 27 October 1999.

TCP/5746/L - Amendment to 'F' above slight change in location of units in the process of being determined subject to Section 106 Agreement.

This is an outline application for residential development indicating access and is 4.67 ha. The application has been accompanied by:

1. Indicative plan showing the concept master plan (copy attached). The plan shows roadways and landscaped areas.

2. Indicative plans showing the layout of approximately 176 units. NB. The plans do not distinguish types.

· Land owned by the College previously allocated for educational purposes reallocated in the draft plan for housing

· Draft Heads of Terms of a Legal Agreement to accompany the planning applications

· Summary schedule of representations made to the deposit draft UDP allocation and Council responses

PPG3 (Housing) particularly best use of urban land and housing directed at the whole community.

Policy S2 Direct new housing to previous developed sites. Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no sustainable alternative brown field site exists.

Policy H1 Major new residential development to be located within the main Island towns.

Policy H2 Large residential development to contain a variety of house sizes and types.

Policy H3 Allocation of residential development sites acceptable in principle. In particular H38 states:

“It is proposed that an area of land to the rear of properties on the eastern side of Ashey Road be released for residential purposes. Access to the proposed residential area will be from Ashey Road and be constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The development of the area should be in conjunction with the provision of community care facilities either within the site or on adjoining land. The land is undulating in nature and the individual fields enclosed, in the main, by hedge and tree boundaries. The design and layout of any development should take into account the topography of the site, the proximity of nearby properties and maintain the natural features of the area, where possible.

“Housing developments will be permitted if they contribute towards the provision of:

a) Open space in the area to the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) standards;

Policy C11 Site of local importance for nature conservation (C213 – Swanmore Meadows – unimproved grass land)

In addition the urban capacity study and Phasing Report is due to be heard at the Executive Committee on 3 December 2002 and if agreed as Supplementary Play Guidance will, alongside the UDP provide the basis for delivering new housing in line with PPG3 requirements.

By design - Better places to live. A companion guide to PPG3. DTLR CABE September 2001.

Home Zone - Design Guidelines Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers June 2002

"Due to the problems with flooding on the Monkton Mead Brook the receiving catchment for surface water disposal from this site, the agency recommends that all surface water is capable of being retained during the 1% storm event and that discharge to the Monkton Mead Brook is restricted to less than 7 litres/sec/hectare. Although this may appear to be onerous the agency has recommended that any new development within the Monkton Mead catchment should have the same restrictions placed on surface water disposal to ensure no further increases in peak flow and wherever possible a reduction. The Agency suggests the following condition -

No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system is designed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations the features of the drainage system must be capable of storing the estimate 1% probability storm water run off and reducing the discharge to the receiving water course. The scheme shall include a maintenance programme and will establish ownership of the storage system for the future. Reason: To ensure there is no increase in the frequency of down stream flooding into the receiving water course (Monkton Mead Brook) and to ensure future maintenance of the balancing pond.

The Agency would wish to see detailed calculations submitted using micro drainage or similar software to ensure that the system has sufficient volume and restricts discharge to the existing course to Monkton Brook.

"The 225 mm sewer in Ashey Road is close to the limits of its capacity. It would therefore not be appropriate to discharge foul or surface water from the site into this sewer however the 800 mm sewer to the east of the site does have sufficient capacity to accept foul flows only from the 250 houses proposed for the development. I would therefore have no objection to the foul drainage from the site being connected to the sewer. I understand that there is an intention that surface water drainage is to be discharged into the Monkton Mead Brook. This being the case I am unable to comment on this as this is not intended to discharge into a public sewer. Permission for the discharge of surface water into the Brook would need to be obtained from the Environment Agency."

A further later letter from Southern Water conflicts with this advice and states:

"I have had a capacity check undertaken on the foul sewers in the area. The computer model predicts that the additional flow from the development would exacerbate existing surcharge of the sewer alongside the Monkton Mead Brook. Existing storm overflows on the sewer and the increased flow from the development would mean that they would operate more frequently and spill more than that is permitted by their consent. Flows cannot be accommodated without reinforcement works to the system alternatively the proposed flow would have to be transferred directly to the waste water treatment works at Appley. It is assumed that the new development will have separate storm water drainage connecting to soakaways and/or the local water courses subject to their approval."

"As noted in your letter I previously commented on this site on 3 April 2001 the current situation is the same as before. There is not sufficient capacity in a sewer adjacent to the Monkton Mead Brook to serve the proposed development. It would require major upgrading of the sewer to serve it. We are looking at where any spare capacity may be in the system but the investigations are not yet complete."

“In the conversation I said that in the past the sewer capacity for the development would only look at the sewers in the immediate vicinity. However today all major catchments have a computer model to enable the effect of development to be seen on all of the sewers. Thus the recent capacity check for the proposed development on the sewer alongside Monktonmead Brook identified places where surcharging and flooding could occur. Until improvements, that have not yet been identified, are constructed, there is insufficient spare capacity to serve the proposed development.”

"The application includes an area of unimproved neutral grassland of nature conservation at the northern end of the site. The value of this land for nature conservation was addressed at the UDP public inquiry in 1999. It was the Inspector's view that the ecological value of this land had been considered by the Council but in terms of the balance of interest, the housing allocation on this land is appropriate. He also recognised that whilst housing development would cause the loss of much of the nature conservation value of the site features such as hedgerows, trees and water courses could be safeguarded through the development control process. The Inspector added that in reaching his conclusion he had regard to the fact that a large area of land in the vicinity would be protected from development by the village green designation and the proposed SINC and that this area provides recreational opportunities for local residents.

My comments upon the development of the site are in accord with those expressed by the Inspector in his report.

· Existing hedgerows and mature trees should be protected from development and reinforced by planting where necessary.

· Land within the SINC/village green should be protected from development. Consequently the proposed community hall car parking and children's play areas are not appropriate to be sited within the wooden area to the south of the proposed development.

· The current proposal makes reference to the creation of two "surface water detention facilities". The location of these requires confirmation. At the northern end of the site a balancing pond could be created within the site and some of the species rich turfs from this area profitably be used to provide an area of open space around the pond.

· A suggestion has been made that the second pond/wetland could be located within the SINC. This would be considered nature conservation grounds providing that details of design, layout and planting can be agreed. Details of both proposals would need to be developed through discussion. The Environment Agency should be invited to take part in these discussions.

· It would be essential to maintain such a facility and indeed the whole of the village green requires management the village green is a facility which would be of great value to the occupants of the development and would enhance property values. I would therefore strongly recommend support the principle that a commuted payment for the future maintenance of the pond and village green be obtained from the developer."

"I would emphasise that there are many nature conservation issues within and adjoining the site. Some of these are of a complex nature and I would strongly urge that any approval should not prejudice the necessary discussions which need to take place in order to adequately address and resolve these other issues relating to the development of this green field site."

"I can confirm that two pieces of research have recently taken place in Ryde to help assess open space needs for the area. These include:

· Isle of Wight Playing Field Assessment (incorporating Ryde) draft report 2002 Families First Consultancy.

· Ryde: Community Mapping Order - 2001 CLES Consultancy for the Isle of Wight partnership.

Without seeing the illustrations relating to the development I cannot comment on the appropriateness of community provision being suggested, however I am keen to work with you on NPFA and PPG 17 requirements to provide additional facilities where a likely short fall in provision has been identified. I do believe if required a port folio of evidence could be produced to support the open space needs for Ryde."

"Of the four major green-field sites allocated the Ashey Road site at Ryde has been planned and designed out too detailed stage. Because of this the report suggests that this site is likely to progress in the short term if consent is granted. The housing needs survey identified a major shortage of affordable housing in the Ryde area which could be partly addressed by the development of this site. The Phasing Report identifies that Ashey Road should come forward in the short term to ensure that the Council can meet its objectives of providing for identified housing needs in line with PPG3”.

"It is true to say that soakaways may not be advisable in the known wet areas or where the ground conditions are predominantly of high plasticity, e.g. clay. As far as I am aware this site is in an area of clay subsoil, therefore successful use of soakaways is doubtful.

The foundation design will be entirely dependent upon site investigation. Strip foundations are not suitable in all areas, particularly where clay subsoil and high water demanding trees are present. The result of a site investigation will give a better idea as to the foundation design best suited for that area."

a) Between 90 and 100 households are made homeless in Ryde, each year. These are predominantly families with children, who then have to spend weeks or months in B & B or other temporary accommodation before being rehoused. Note: this is 90 to 100 EVERY YEAR.

b) There are 366 families in Ryde who are not homeless, but because of their current housing conditions, i.e. insecurity, disrepair, overcrowding etc. have applied to join the Housing Register. At the current rate of supply of social housing, most of these will never be rehoused, unless they actually become homeless.

Clearly, the normal Housing Corporation or Council funded social house building programmes will never be sufficient to meet the demand for affordable housing, so any amount of additional social housing gained through PPG3 contributions are critical, particularly in the very high demand areas such as Ryde.“

I really have a particular problem with surface water being attenuated by the flat sided shallow ponds that the Council would have to take responsibility for. In terms of basic risk management, what provision will be made to prevent people from falling in and drowning or from damage to persons or property arising from the ponds overflowing? Personally, I would be against the authority taking this into its ownership. I can have a charge calculated for the maintenance but would need more information in respect of their construction.

I think it is right and proper that an open space provision should be made within the development and would not be against an area of one hectare being provided. This is subject to the open space being ‘usable’ and not spread about as strips adjacent to highways or little corner plots on the gable end of a house. Again, I am happy to calculate a commuted sum for their maintenance but it really does depend on what is to be provided.

It would be nice to produce a community facility building but I am sure that for £40,000 we would not get what you envisage. Of course I am no builder. I do not know of the demand for any such building and would suggest that it would be better if such a sum were used in a back to back agreement to improve other local community facilities.

I think the provision of a children’s play area is, again, an excellent idea but it must be located sympathetically within the development and must be adequate to service all of the children within it. Are you suggesting that it comes within the one hectare or is additional to it? Again, I am able to calculate the capital and maintenance costs for the provision of a suitable play area if you should require it. Perhaps if you have any proposed plans for the area, this would be a useful start for us. “

Local Member expresses his concern via a letter to local residents a copy of which is attached.

This report will look first at the principle of development via the policy position before moving onto the detailed assessment of density, mix and affordable houses, schools, open spaces, community facilities, highways, foul water, surface water, landscape and nature conservation, store geotechnics and Village Green.

This is a site allocated for residential development within the Unitary Development Plan. Accordingly the application should be determined in line with this statutory document unless other material considerations outweigh the policy position.

In addition, the Government has now produced PPG3 Housing (May 2000) and its objectives need to be properly reflected in determining planning applications irrespective of the policies in statutory development plans.

In particular density, sustainability and the need to assess the urban capacity of the town have become major issues.

To provide a context for the release of housing sites the Urban Capacity Study looks at how much brown-field land will be coming forward over the plan period (up to 2011) and makes an assessment as to the need for new Greenfield land and how its release will not compromise brownfield sites coming forward. The Government's now set a target of 65% residential development to be on brown-field land.

In Island terms this is a major site and accordingly the rate of release should be controlled to safeguard the objectives of PPG3 in promoting brownfield development. The Urban Capacity Study and Phasing Report will also allow major sites to "trickle feed" new housing into the market place as opposed to one site being dependant on another site being built out. This should also sustain competition between housing developers and impact on house prices.

Therefore in principle the release of the allocation within the UDP has been sustained when weighed against PPG3 (Housing) issues. The imposition of appropriate conditions, will allow the development to comply with this Council's policy and the Government's position on sustainable development.

PPG 3 (Housing) and its companion document encourages housing developments to make more efficient use of land. It is suggested densities should be between 30-50 dwellings per hectare net and even higher densities at places with good public transport and accessibility such as a city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.

There is no reason in principle why a density of 30-50 units per hectare net would be unacceptable. In fact this application if approved needs to be referred to the secretary of state to ensure that the government’s policy is being complied with. As part of this assessment full consideration of PPG3 will be required.

Research reinforced by evidence from the Housing Needs Survey 2001 shows that the market has generally provided for larger 3/4 bedroom houses in an average sized plot son a meandering cul-de-sac. Increases in density has often led to development solutions which squash the plots together, and providing a mixture means changing the units' envelope. This position is now untenable.

These documents show that design is all important and that fundamental to this is the mix of units. By giving a variety and range you are more likely to provide housing that reflects the identified needs of the community as a whole.

Tied closely to this is the need (identified in the Housing Needs Survey) for 1 and 2 bedroom units. Any suggestion of mix should not reflect the existing mix of the surrounding area but attempt to readdress the balance for the local area as a whole. The requirement of 60% 1 and 2 bedroom units would seem equitable.

To further housing for the whole community is the consideration of affordable housing.

It can be argued that other considerations in this report are finely balanced. This issue is not. The application is one of the only substantial allocated site, that can bring forward in the short term affordable housing in line with Council policy. If the site was developed at say 250 units it would bring forward 50 units of affordable housing sold to a registered landlord at half price and available of rent. It is important that the units are of a design, size and location that ensures the values of such properties are kept to a minimum and therefore allow RSLI to raise the 50% OMV required to purchase such properties through their rental stream/TCI’s. This will ultimately mean the development of smaller one/two bed units which by definition will meet identified needs and be at the low price scale. This would be a huge input into reducing the cost on the community of unmet needs of residents of Ryde.

The Housing Officer makes it very clear of the level of demand faced in Ryde each year. That is between 90 and 100 households which are predominantly families with children. He further stated that there are a further 366 families in Ryde who are not homeless but because of their current housing condition i.e. insecurity, disrepair, overcrowding etc. have applied to join the Housing Register. At the current rate of supply of social housing most of these will never be rehoused, unless they actually become homeless.

Taking the upper end of a possible 250 units this would equate to an additional 575 residents. The Education Officer has been further consulted. In the absence of a response the information contained within the UDP remains relevant. That is it is anticipated that there are adequate school places to accommodate the allocated site.

There is no corporate approach/policy within this Council that the Local Planning Authority can interrogate and apply with regard to open space maintenance, adoption or management. In the past open space has been provided in reaction to the demands at the time. It has not been uncommon for open space to be sacrificed for other demands such as affordable housing and highways improvements. However there is a policy consideration under policy L10 which advocates the use of the NPFA standards (Supplementary Play Guidance is being sought in an attempt to procure the corporate issues.)

If the development demands it, it should be provided. This is further argued by PPG 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) in that it attempts to address the shortfall of open space by "making" local authorities vigorously assess the community's needs and allow new development to contribute to that shortfall.

The two reports; Isle of Wight Paying Field Assessment (Draft) 2002 and Ryde: Community Mapping Order 2001 go some way to show the shortfall. This shortfall is supported by the Sport and Recreation Officer.

In the absence of a better assessment I will turn to policy L10 and in particular the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) 6 acres standard. That is for every 1000 population there should be 6 acres of recreational space available. That is 1.6 to 1.8 ha for outdoor sport per 1000 population and 0.6 to 0.8 ha for children’s play space per 1000 population.

Therefore NPFA standards will require between 0.78 ha 1.28 ha in the distribution shown below.

Density	Site Area	Units	Population	Outdoor Sport	Childrens Play Areas	Total
30	4.67 ha	140	322	0.55 ha	0.23 ha	0.78 ha
50	4.67 ha	234	538	0.9 ha	0.38 ha	1.28 ha

As there appears to be a shortfall of open space in the surrounding area and this development generates its own need then full provision is required. A condition of provision relating to the number of units provided is appropriate. It is important to note that this provision would be ‘usable’ space and not the accumulation of strips adjacent to highways and other ‘left over’ strips.

The Children’s Play Space will include outdoor equipped playgrounds and outdoor play area such as an adventure playground. This can be delivered through a Section 106 agreement.

At the expense of stating the obvious, the greater the density, the greater the requirement for open space.

The commuted sum to be calculated will be in consultation with the Head of Community Development and Tourism.

Other than the description under Policy H3 (38) which reads "The development of the area should be in conjunction with the provision of community centre facilities either within the site or on adjoining land" I can see little justification for this requirement.

I have no evidence that such a facility is required and therefore have no indication of what is needed. The development in itself does not generate such a need. The Head of Community Development and Tourism does not know of any demand for such a building and suggests it would be better if such a sum were used in a back to back agreement to improve other local community facilities.

Funds of £17,194 have been generated to date by a legal agreement attached to adjoining sites. However, it is my opinion that these monies if not spent will be lost. The Council should not be developers but facilitators and therefore the responsibility of building a community facility should lay firmly with the developer but only if it can be justified.

However I am comfortable that the monies received to date can be used to enhance the play area equipment that the development in itself generates. Thereby the play area would therefore be attractive enough to users not necessarily living on the application site.

Further legal advice needs to be clarified to how this £17,194 could be spent. For instance would the placing of an order for play equipment be enough to stop this money being lost.

No additional highway requirements other than the standard conditions have been identified. However I will be looking for some form of sustainable linkage to the town via Weeks Road and can foresee this being upgraded by appropriate chippings etc. to allow motorists to change from their cars to access the town on foot or by bicycle. Some incidental lighting may be appropriate.

There appears to be some conflicting advice from Southern Water to whether or not there is existing capacity in the sewerage. However the latest advice is that there is not. Thus the proposal falls short of the requirements of policy U11 which states that before granting planning permission for development the Council shall be satisfied that adequate infrastructure services and supplies infrastructures or drainage will be available to serve a site. On further discussion it appears that the advice given by Southern Water is now more refined by using more sophisticated measures, the need for greater densities and the public expectations of higher standards.

I appreciate that there is a right to connect to the public supplies under the auspices of the Water Industry Act 1991 and Environment Act 1995 but with the amount of sensitive uses on the site and in its vicinity it was important that the route of the sewerage can be agreed.

Members may recall that the site to the south (the Village Green) was almost used for the line of the sewer at one stage. This was outside the control of the Local Planning Authority.

Circular 1/97 advances the view that developers should not cause additional burden on the cost of infrastructure which would not have been necessary but for their development. Also within case law (George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. versus Secretary of State for the Environment and Maidstone Borough Council) the following commenting was made:

“… the water authority has no power to direct refusal. So the planning authority makes the final decision as to whether the housing need should prevail over the water authorities’ problem of providing sewerage. It must therefore follow that a planning application can be refused on the grounds of inadequate sewerage or otherwise the developer would be able to dictate the pace at which sewerage be provided.”

Members are reminded that the previous formal opinion from Council regarding drainage stated that in the absence of any technical support being available to sustain any reasons for refusal then the reasons could not be supported at appeal. In this instance there is support from a consultation with Southern Water.

Any development should not increase the flood risk of Monkton Mead Brook or elsewhere. The land is not within the flood area of Monkton Mead identified by the Environment Agency nor is it within 8 metres of a statutory main river.

A formal flood risk assessment under the auspices of PPG25 has been submitted and concluded, in my opinion fairly, that:

II) There is no risk of flooding on the development site caused by Monkton Mead Brook.

III) The balancing ponds and attenuation controls will prevent increased flood risk on the Monkton Mead Brook.

In reaching these conclusions it should be noted that within the site there are two sub catchment areas that drain to the north east and south east. At the boundaries the surface water enters into the existing drainage regime of ditches which discharge into the Monkton Mead Brook.

The EA advise that a run off rate of 7 litres/sec/hectare is required. This is turn requires water to be held on site during heavy rainfall and to be released in a controlled manner. The most recent correspondence is attached as an appendix.

Two shallow ponds with shallow sides are suggested with appropriate throttles. These detention areas will be primarily dry but with a small wet area in a corner. The EA indicates that a solution to the likely demands for surface water disposal can be accommodated but with the proviso that this has to be fully integrated with the site’s development. That is it is not attached as an after thought.

Future maintenance will be required and it is suggested that the sum of £80,000 be paid to the Council to take over full adoption for maintenance and upkeep. This figure has not yet been agreed and would form part of the negotiation of the legal agreement should planning permission be forthcoming. However you will note that there are reservations regarding risk management from the Head of Community Development and Tourism.

From the consultation with the Council’s Ecology Officer it is clear that the site does have some nature conservation interests. However it is also acknowledged that the Inspector in confirming the residential allocation with the UDP took this into consideration but concluded it did not outweigh the designation for residential development.

Nevertheless I feel the hedgerows, ditch corridors and some trees should be afforded protection which could be covered by conditions.

An assessment of slope stability and geotechnics has been undertaken by the applicant. The report concludes that the existing topography and underlying geology caused no difficulties to the proposal in terms of foundation designs nor will the development of the site cause or suffer from slope instability.

The Building Control Surveyor comments that appropriate foundations are achievable.

Therefore there would be no evidence to show that the construction of the proposal would be a problem.

There may be an opportunity with the development to bring forward the management of the wooded area to the south which is a village green owned by the Council. Especially if the open space required by this development forms a link. With the flexibility of maybe reducing the open space there would be no harm in exploring this option through the Section 106 agreement process.

Should Members be minded to approve this application then the matter will have to be referred to GOSE under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on Greenfield Lane) (England) Directions 2000.

In coming to this recommendation to refuse permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring properties and other third parties has been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in manner proposed it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I believe that this site is appropriate for residential development but I am not in a position to recommend approval in the absence of an appropriate foul water disposal scheme.

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

Site has an area of 0.19 hectares, overall dimensions of 65 metres by 35 metres with a frontage of approximately 35 metres to the north side of Newport Road at Lake and about 100 metres to the west of the entrance to Lake Middle School.

The existing building is a two storey, detached building, hitherto used as holiday flats and the property presently contains a bungalow situated close to the rear, north western corner of the building and was previously used as proprietor's accommodation. To the east of the site is a comparatively large area of open space, partly used as playing fields to the Lake Middle School whilst to the north is Blackpan Cottage, a fairly low profile but detached residential property situated approximately 60 metres back from Newport Road and served via a rough, unmade track. To the west a further residential property known as The Cottage close to Newport Road and, beyond, Merrie Gardens Farmhouse, a Listed Building set in extensive grounds, some of which are occupied by partly demolished farm buildings. Safeway supermarket is situated further to the west whilst to the south, on the southern side of Newport Road is the Merrie Gardens residential development.

Change of use from six holiday flats to two dwellings and removal of conditions to allow separate occupation of the owner's bungalow, approved September 2001.

Outline consent sought for erection of a block of six flats in an extension and for the refurbishment of the existing bungalow and conversion of the existing house into four flats making a total of eleven units. The intention is to attach an extension, overall dimensions of 27 metres (max) by essentially 6.1 metres wide on the eastern end of the building, running parallel to the access track situated on the eastern side of the site. In three elements, each comprising a flat on each of ground and first floors, the north end element would be turned at 90 degrees forming a courtyard with the western wing formed by the existing bungalow. The block would be two storeys in height with part of the upper floor accommodation being contained within the roof space, thus reducing the overall height of the block.

The existing bungalow would remain as existing and the main house known as Greenfields, would be sub-divided internally to form four units of varying sizes.

Vehicular access to the site exists off Newport Road in both the south west and south east corners. The proposal is to close the south westerly access and utilise the south easterly access where it joins Newport Road at the junction with the track on the eastern side of the site. The site plan shows there to be thirteen car parking spaces in four areas with only pedestrian access to the new units from the courtyard.

This site falls within the designated development envelope as shown on the Sandown/Shanklin and Lake inset in the UDP.

Policy G1 expects new developments to be located within settlements defined by development envelopes.

Policy G4 supports new development providing it harmonises with its surroundings, landscape or town-scape using appropriate scale, design and landscaping; and creates an interesting, attractive environment; and with proper regard to all access needs; is sympathetic to the character and materials of their surroundings; does not protrude above prominent ridges or skylines; does not expand out of any natural valley or depression; does not intrude into prominent views into, out of or across any town, village or area of countryside; and respects existing street and village patterns.

Policy D1 permits development where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and respects the visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding area; expecting development to be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing; development to be of a height, mass, and density which is compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses and therefore does not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness.

Policy H5 supports infill development where such sites are within the development envelopes and will not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and surrounding area, whilst Policy H6 supports high density residential development in appropriate areas where the amenity of surrounding areas will not be unduly affected.

Policy H7 accepts extensions or alterations to existing residential property providing such extensions are of appropriate size, scale and design to the property; where additional dwellings are not created and where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

PPG3 proposes to utilise land more economically, increasing density and supports the provision of low cost housing, especially social housing.

Ramblers Association raise concern over the effect of these developments on the public footpath especially vehicles being parked on the right of way expecting the right of way to remain open and in good condition during and after the development.

One letter of objection from adjoining property owner on grounds of overdevelopment of the area, change in character of development; dangerous access within close proximity of Lake Middle School; additional vehicles using the access which is located in close proximity to the Whitecross Lane junction resulting in a major traffic hazard.

The relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

With the change of use having been granted for the use of this property for purely residential purposes, the principle has already been set as the property is located within the development envelope and no significant changes to the buildings appearance were proposed. This application seeks to add a substantial extension in which six additional living units would be provided, a total of eleven units in all for Housing Association accommodation.

The conversion of the existing building into four units is likely to be accepted providing adequate accommodation. However, the additional six units, created by the addition of a substantial extension would have an adverse visual effect on the area due to the resultant mass and site coverage as a result of the proposal. In effect the density of the occupation of the site would be substantially increased and although increased densities in urban areas are encouraged by central Government, it is felt that the density in this location would be inappropriate bearing in mind the open nature of the area. A resultant development of fifty eight units per hectare would be achieved which it is felt in this area would be excessive.

Policy G1 expects new developments to be within the designated development envelopes, which this site is but, conversely, Policy G4 seeks development which will harmonise with its surroundings and landscape by using appropriate scale, design and landscaping and developments which would be sympathetic to the character of the surroundings.

Policy H6 supports high density residential development where the amenity of surrounding areas is not unduly affected and the density and design is acceptable and appropriate to the character and layout of the settlement. Despite the higher density residential development on the south side of Newport Road, that of Merrie Gardens, (Merrie Gardens is typically twenty three dwellings per hectare) this side of Newport Road comprises sparse development. In addition, to the north of the site is another cottage but beyond and to the east the site is open. A dense development of this site would be out of keeping with the surroundings and the large mass would be visually intrusive.

The closure of the western most access and the utilisation of the eastern access, where it adjoins the track is acceptable to the Highway Engineer but it is felt that the use of the site would be more acceptable in terms of pedestrian safety if the footpath along the frontage were extended to link with the pedestrian path outside the Safeway supermarket. This would be a length of approximately 200 metres.

It is not considered that there any human rights implications in connection with this particular application.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in this report, the proposal is considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the site, at an excessive density where the visual impact of the mass of the extension would adversely affect the visual amenities of the area and therefore the development would be contrary to policies H6, D1 and G4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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

These applications relate to a detached chalet style dwelling situated within Ventnor Park and formerly being the park keeper's Lodge. The site is situated between the putting green and the park area and is close to the southern side of Park Avenue being set back from the road by a small garden/courtyard through which, runs a small stream.

The building stands alone on the southern side of the road whilst to the north is a row of detached Victorian villa style buildings.

The site itself comprises a small rectangular area including the dwelling itself and a small garden area to the north. The building is of distinctive design with a gabled roof incorporating covered verandahs with part stone and part boarded elevations with decorative details. There is a dilapidated panel fence on the roadside boundary and the remainder of the park is characterised by a low wall and hedging.

There is no relevant planning history to this property which was recently sold by the Council. Members may be aware that legal restrictions at least at the time of the sale restricted any alterations to the building without consent of the Council. Whilst these matters are not strictly relevant to consideration of the applications, I believe the restrictions did include the need to agree any alterations on fencing with the Conservation Officer.

The applications now under consideration are for planning permission and listed building consent in respect of various alterations and extensions to the building and removal of the dilapidated timber fencing and its replacement with a new boundary fence.

Removal of a timber lean-to building under the existing verandah and its replacement with a small extension to provide an en-suite bathroom.

A single storey extension to the existing flat roofed extension including alterations to provide timber cladding to match the existing building and a green patinated copper roof to improve the appearance of this later structure.

Alterations to the existing entrance porch replacing a door with a window and recladding to match the existing structure.

Removal of the existing timber fencing on the roadside boundary and its replacement with a decorative timber fence patterned to match the bargeboards of the existing property, incorporating a varied line with a maximum height of approximately 2 metres to provide privacy and screening to the small garden area adjacent to the road.

The building is listed Grade II and is situated within a designated conservation area. Unitary Development Plan policies B1 and B6 are therefore applicable together with Government advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.

Unitary Development Plan policies D1 and H7 are also applicable to the applications.

Ventnor Park is noted as being a park of local interest. UDP Policy B10 applies.

A letter received from Council for British Archeology requesting further information but no additional response received.

Letter from Georgian Group indicating that the building concerned dates from outside the period in which the group is interested and comments are therefore deferred to other national amenity societies.

Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of the application.

Letter received from local resident objecting to proposals on grounds it constitutes a fundamental and major change of use of a listed property in a conservation area. Increase in accommodation and use of the property is considered inappropriate.

A four bedroom house with such a tiny garden inevitably has implications and would be out of place in this situation.

This application relates to alterations and extensions to the listed building within a conservation area and the determining factors are therefore considered to be the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the existing building and the amenities of the area.

The property is situated within Ventnor Park itself and there are no other residential properties abutting this site which would be directly affected by the proposals.

As indicated above, the works comprise various different elements which are mainly replacements or alterations of later structures attached to the main building. These matters have been discussed with the Council's Conservation Officer and a copy of the application details have been sent to the Property Services section for comment. Whilst matters relating to the legal agreement at the time of the sale of the property are not for consideration as part of these applications, I understand that the Property Services Officer has no over riding objection to the proposals provided the Council's Conservation Officer has agreed the details.

The proposed alterations and extensions have been designed to reflect the character of the existing building and would result in a significant improvement to its overall appearance by upgrading and replacing later single storey extensions which are out of character with the building.

The new extensions would include timber boarding to match the existing structure and a new copper patinated roof which would be green in finish is shown. This would provide a lean to verandah on the edge of the existing flat roof structure which would match the character of the existing building and help disguise the poor quality flat roof extension on the building.

The proposals also include construction of a new timber fence to the roadside boundary which has been the result of some discussion and negotiation. This fence would replace an existing timber fence of poor quality and the design of the new fence incorporates decorative fret work detailing to reflect characteristics of the barge boards of the existing building. In addition, the top line of the fence is varied to reflect the identity of the main building and to give an interesting appearance to the street scene.

Overall, I consider the proposals are acceptable and would serve to preserve and enhance the character and setting of the Grade II listed building and the designated conservation area.

In coming to the recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Rights 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. 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 freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed works would serve to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the Grade II listed building and the designated conservation area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies D1, H7, B1 and B6 of the Unitary Development Plan and advice contained in PPG15. The proposals would not significantly adversely affect the amenities of the locality or occupiers of nearby properties.

The application is a departure from policy and raises conflicting policy issues which require consideration by Members.

Application relates to substantial detached former hotel building on the south east corner of the junction of Arthurs Hill, Atherley Road, Hope Road, North Road and Queens Road at Shanklin. The premises have a double road frontage with parking area fronting Queens Road. There is a mix of uses in the area with residential to the immediate south, shop with residential to immediate east. Hope Road itself appears predominantly guest house/hotel accommodation when viewed from junction adjacent application site.

Application seeks consent for use of former hotel as restaurant and self-contained flat at ground floor and use of first floor for complementary and beauty therapy facilities.

Feasibility study submitted with application provides information, aims and ethos of proposal and identifies customer base, provides details of previous use of premises. Detailed breakdown supplied on outlay to run as a hotel, expected income from building as a hotel, outlay to run as a therapy centre, expected income from therapy centre, therapies and groups currently booked and supporting letters.

The centre will consist of a reception area on the ground floor and eight letting rooms on the first floor, together with public toilets and a kitchen/restaurant area for therapists. On the ground floor is a 40-cover restaurant, which is intended to have a full on licence and be open to the public. The aims of the proposal are to provide a place for people to go for information, relaxation and treatments, or simply to eat; promote good health and vitality; offer a comprehensive range of therapies that will appeal to a wide audience, island people and visitors alike; develop a community by encouraging groups to meet at the centre.

Part of the proposal is to provide a self-contained flat at ground floor which is anticipated will be occupied independently from the business proposal.

Evidence within the feasibility study states that the hotel was closed down in 1992. Information also indicates that part of the ground floor has been used as a restaurant and part of the ground floor and first floor and have been rated as domestic.

From an internal inspection of the first floor of the premises, it was evident that seven out of the eight bedrooms had separate electric slot meters installed which one would not normally expect in hotel accommodation.

Costings have been provided to profit and loss calculations both for making the premises into and running as hotel and expected annual income along with the outlay involved to make the premises into and run as a therapy centre. In addition, income projections for the proposed restaurant and flat are shown. In summary, the feasibility study indicates the premises to not be viable as a hotel.

Various therapies/workshops have already been booked so far: beauty therapy, aromatherapy and aromatherapy massage, therapeutic massage, nutritional therapy, spiritual healing, stress management, reflexology, neurolinguistic programming, hypnotherapy, movement therapy, Reiki Healing, counselling, sports therapy. The groups shown to have been booked so far are: Mediation group twice weekly, presentation on Neurolinguistic Programming, monthly stress management workshop, monthly reflexology workshop, fortnightly mothers infant and toddler nutrition group, Reiki Healing group, and workshops, Indian head massage, weekly dance therapy group, weekly movement therapy group for OAPS, workshops on Kirlian photography, weekly healing group, workshops on vegetarian nutrition.

The restaurant will serve organic food and the centre will be advertised to islanders and visitors.

The centre will assist with income for the applicants existing hotel, Bourne Hall as it is will be run in conjunction with this and it is intended to offer adult only retreat weekends to include treatments at the centre.

“We all know that tourism is a vital part of the island’s economy. In order to keep visitors coming to the island it is therefore essential that we continue to offer a variety of attractions for the discerning visitor. We must plan to cater for the changing tastes of visitors, not just for today but also for the future.”

In a letter from the Sales & Membership Manager of Isle of Wight Tourism submitted with the feasibility study it states “High quality facilities such as you are proposing, combining relaxation, therapy and restaurant facilities are sure to be attractive to both visitors and islanders alike.”

The site is located within the defined development area in a Hotel Policy Area and the following policies are considered relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes, G10 - Potential Conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses, D1 - Standards of Design, T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season, T2 - Tourism-Related Development, T4 - Designation of Hotel Areas.

Tourism Services have been consulted but no formal response received other than that submitted with application which has been summarised with application details above.

Shanklin Town Council initially requested deferral of application as scheme related to first floor of building only. They recommend approval of revised scheme.

One letter supporting such an innovative new business. Islands leisure and tourism needs to move ahead fast if we are to remain as a popular short break destination and alternative therapy and healing centres are becoming very fashionable as another leisure activity.

Main planning considerations relate to consideration of relevant development plan policies, fact that building is in a Hotel Policy area and proposal results in loss of hotel, whether proposal supports and promotes tourism and whether it presents adverse impact on amenities of surrounding area.

Policy T1 advises that proposals which promote and support tourism and/or seek to extend the tourist season will be acceptable in principle provided they minimise any detrimental or adverse impact.

Policy T2 supports tourism related development subject to design, access, parking and landscaping being satisfactory.

Policy T4 advises that in the hotel areas defined on the proposals map, applications involving the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where they involve the upgrading or improvement of existing hotels. Proposals involving the loss of other forms of tourist accommodation, facilities, entertainments and parking to uses unrelated to tourism will not be approved.

In support of application, feasibility study highlights that premises have not operated as a hotel since 1992. In the interim, the ground floor has been used as a restaurant with an apparent use of part of the ground floor and first floor as residential accommodation. No formal planning permission has been granted for these uses.

Proposal is loss of hotel but other material considerations should be borne in mind in assessing application. In particular, whether promotion of new tourism facility outweighs loss of hotel. The building is in a prominent position within hotel area and condition will obviously deteriorate if not utilised. Proposal supports tourism and to a degree, existing Bourne Hall Hotel in same ownership.

The restaurant will be open to visitors unrelated to the therapy centre but again this will support the proposed first floor use and tourism.

With regard the proposed limited residential accommodation, it is likely this particular area has been previously occupied in connection with the hotel. Policy would resist permanent residential accommodation in this location but it should be borne in mind that this is a small area of the overall floor space of the building and part of the proposal to make the whole scheme viable.

In summary, I consider the collective scheme of therapy centre, restaurant and flat provides an exchange of one tourism use for another and an acceptable alternative use to this former hotel.

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 other property in the area and other third parties have been 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.

Having given due regard and appropriate to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider the considerations of Policy T1 and T2 supporting tourism outweigh the loss of hotel accommodation (T4) and recommend accordingly.

The application is contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

This application relates to a residential property which was formerly an entrance lodge to the Woodlands Vale estate. The property is situated on the northern side of Calthorpe Road, approximately 100 metres to the south east of the junction with Woodlands Close. The property is in a prominent location, situated away from other dwellings and is a distinctive feature in the locality.

The building itself is of distinctive design with a covered entrance way and a small domed turret feature. It is of picturesque design comprising decorative gables and brick work with white painted timber windows and a varied roofline. The area is rural in character with hedges and trees surrounding the site.

The planning and Listed Building Consent applications now under consideration are for a revised scheme for a two storey extension at the southern end of the existing property to provide annexed accommodation, together with a separate detached double garage at the rear of the property.

The revised details have been submitted following negotiations resulting in a smaller extension than that originally submitted with a simplified roofline and a lower overall height.

The submitted plans now indicate annexed accommodation comprising two bedroom accommodation with the first floor element contained within the roof space and incorporating a link through to the existing first floor accommodation within the main property.

The extension has been designed to match the features of the existing building incorporating half timbered gables and traditional joinery all to match the distinctive characteristics of the main building.

The revised details also include a separate detached double garage situated within the garden area at the rear of the property. The garage is also of traditional design incorporating a brick plinth base with timber boarded elevations and a plain tiled gabled roof. The location of the garage would be well screened and whilst it may be glimpsed from the entrance archway through the main building, it would not have significant visual impact on the locality as a whole, or on the setting of the main building.

The submitted details also show retention of the majority of the landscape screening including the existing grass bank and shrubs adjacent to the roadside and a large pine tree which is a feature of the area.

The site is situated outside any development envelope as identified within the Unitary Development Plan. The property forms part of the former Woodlands Vale estate which is identified as a park/garden of local interest. Policy B1 of the Unitary Development Plan is therefore applicable to the application.

The building itself has recently been listed as being of architectural and historic merit which indicates that the lodge building is dated 1900 and designed by Steven Salter a local architect constructed of rough cast render and brick work with a clay tile roof and gabled ends with deep modillion cornice eaves and verges and a lead clad dome to the turret. Brick chimney stacks with tall diagonally set shafts and tapered clay pots. The description indicates the structure to be a good example of a 1900 domestic revival freestyle lodge serving Woodlands Vale and the date of listing was 19 August 2002 which was after the submission of the initial application but prior to receipt of the revised plans. The listing is Grade II. Unitary Development Plan policies B1 and B2 refer to works to listed buildings and proposals which would affect the setting of listed buildings.

In addition, Unitary Development Plan policies D1 (Design) and H7 (Extensions to residential properties) would be material considerations in respect of this application.

The Isle of Wight Society commented in respect of the originally submitted plans that the lodge building incorporated a number of architectural features which make the building unique. The proposed annexe does not carry any special features which would make it compatible with the original design and is therefore most inappropriate. the lodge is situated within a historic park and any change to the lodge would jeopardise this status. It is suggested that the building should be considered for spot listing.

The Isle of Wight Gardens Trust also commented in respect of the original application that the special character and high quality of Woodlands Vale lodge is acknowledged and the proposed extension designed to be sympathetic with the existing building. Nevertheless an extension of the size proposed would change the character of the building. Any changes to a building of this quality should not be made without detailed agreement between the applicant and the Council's Conservation Officer regarding the materials to be used. The trust consider the proposed extension would adversely affect the historic designed landscape.

Consultees have been advised of revised plans and further comments will be reported.

Parish Council objected to the originally submitted details on grounds of over development of the site not in keeping with the property. This is one of 5 exceptional Victorian lodges on the Island.

Parish Council have been notified of revised plans and any further comments will be reported.

Thirteen letters were received in respect of the originally submitted plans with matters raised summarised below:

The existing building is of small scale and attractive appearance and is considered to be of architectural merit being one of the buildings designed by a well known local architect - Steven Salter - as the main entrance to the Woodlands Vale estate. The building has not been altered externally and the application proposals would completely alter the character of the building.

The proposed extension would be totally out of scale with the existing premises resulting in a building of twice the size.

The submitted drawings show separate living accommodation resulting in two dwellings within the same property.

The property is situated very near to the road with an extension of the brick wall not detailed. Development would involve felling of mature trees and planting.

Development would be contrary to policies within the Unitary Development Plan which seek to preserve the designated historic park and garden.

The gate lodge has a separate and identifiable architectural character which has not yet received the recognition which it deserves. This is central to the architectural heritage.

The proposed annexed extension would in effect change the unique and original gate lodge to a pair of semi-detached houses with a garage.

The building is one of various former estate buildings which are in separate ownership but all retain their original features and every effort should be made to keep the estate as a whole as nearly original as possible. There are a number of architectural features which make the building unique. The tower bears a likeness to Edistone Lighthouse and was no doubt incorporated because the then owner of Woodlands Vale had connections with the Royal Navy. The design of the building far exceeds the requirements of a mere gate house and has many elements of eceltic Victorian architecture.

The proposed extension would dwarf the existing building and dominate the site changing the visual impact of the original building. The road elevation of the proposed building would be very dominant when travelling along Calthorpe Road.

The development in the area would be detrimental to the habitat of the red squirrel.

Letter received from the Country Watch Residents Association indicating that the association represents over 200 in the Elmfield and Appley area of Ryde. Comment is made that the lodge is one of a few surviving examples of Victorian coach houses and should be preserved and is close to the road highly visible to Islanders and visitors alike and much admired. The proposals would more than double its size and completely destroy its fine architectural balance and effectively turn the property into as pair of semi-detached houses.

Letter received from Pondwell Residents Association indicating their support for the Parish Council in its objections to the proposed development for the same reasons.

Following receipt of revised plans and readvertisement and notification of application, three further letters have been received outlining the history of the building and its architectural and historic importance. Research indicates that gate lodges have been seriously neglected until quite recently. Such buildings were the test bed for architectural expression and innovation and were amongst the first humble dwellings to have been architecturally designed. Woodlands Vale Lodge is an important example and must be protected and although not very old (1900) is nevertheless precious. Woodlands Vale Lodge is one of four gate houses designed by the architect Steven Salter.

Members are advised that the final date for receipt of comments in respect of the Listed Building application is 27 December 2002 as a result of the building being listed following submission of the planning application.

This application for a substantial annex extension to an existing dwelling house which is situated in a prominent location needs to be carefully considered in respect of its visual impact and effect on the character and appearance of the existing building. The property itself, although formerly part of the Woodlands Vale estate now stands alone and there are no other residential properties in the vicinity which would be directly affected by the proposals.

The determining factors are therefore considered to be the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the locality and, in particular its effect on the character of the estate which is designated as a park/garden of local interest.

The existing building is of unusual and interesting architectural design and is a distinct feature in the locality. The building has recently been listed Grade II as being of architectural and historic interest and this will therefore be a major consideration in respect of the impact of the extension and the detached garage on the character, appearance and setting of the listed building.

Members are advised that the application which is under consideration has been submitted for planning consent as it was submitted prior to the building being listed. Whilst the effect of the proposals on the listed building will be a determining factor, listed building consent will also be required for any works to extend or alter the building.

The originally submitted plans showed a substantial extension situated on the southern side of the main building forming an 'L' shaped structure. The plans showed a substantial roof with a splayed corner and a large two storey gabled element comprising accommodation above a detached garage at ground floor level. It was noted that the details showed careful consideration had been given to reflect the architectural detailing of the existing building, with particular reference to the external joinery, roof shapes and use of materials. Nevertheless concerns were evident regarding the size, and particularly the height of the proposed extension with the larger gabled element directly competing with and dominating the massing and appearance of the existing building.

Following discussions and negotiations, revised plans have now been submitted showing the proposed extension simplified in design and reduced in scale. The architectural detailing of the existing building has again been respected with decorative timber work to the gables and traditional timber joinery for the windows, barge boards and other details. The roofline has been simplified and the higher element significantly reduced in height to maintain the dominance of the existing building.

In order to achieve this, the integral double garage element has been separated from the extension and would now form a detached building of different design at the rear of the main property where it would be less visibly prominent. The extension itself would be partially screened from the main road by an existing landscaped bank.

Whilst the concerns of local residents and others are noted regarding the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area and the Grade II listed building, I am of the opinion that the revised details now under consideration have significantly reduced the visual effect that the proposals would have on the character and appearance of the existing building and, taking account of the detailed design of the proposals reflecting characteristics of the existing building, I am of the opinion that this would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the architectural or historic value of the existing building taking account of advice contained in PPG15 'Planning and the historic environment'.

I also consider that as the works would be effectively contained within the rear garden and courtyard of the exiting property whilst maintaining the landscape screening to the roadside frontage and other boundaries, that this would not have any significantly adverse effect on the existing estate which is designated as being a garden of local historic interest.

The reduced roof lines of the building would not intrude into the views of the area and would remain subservient to the main building.

In coming to this recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owner/occupiers of 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 have 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 freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised plans which have been submitted following detailed negotiations are now considered to be acceptable both in terms of their effect on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed building and the amenities of the area as a whole taking into account the designation of the parkland as being of local interest. The revised details are therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as policies B1 and B2 relating to the listed building and advice in PPG15 the revised details are therefore recommended for approval.

Listed Building Consent not to be issued before the 27 December 2002 and subject to no further comments being received which would warrant reconsideration of the application.

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

Application relates to roughly rectangular plot of agricultural land situated in gap between residential development to west and east, namely Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close. Site totals some 1.6 hectares in area and has road frontage of approximately 130 metres and has benefit of embankment with mature hedgerow.

During Unitary Development Plan adoption this site was subject to objection which was considered by Inspector. Objection to plan was made on grounds that development envelope should be amended to incorporate this site and existing development at Thornton Manor Drive. In recommending that no modification be made in respect of this objection the Inspector stated:

“This site is put forward on the basis that, although currently used for agriculture, it is not suitable for that purpose – adjoining urban uses limit agriculture use and the tenant farmer can be relocated elsewhere. However, both areas of the objection site are best and most versatile agricultural land which is Government policy to protect from uses which are not reversible. With that in mind, and the conclusion I have reached in Section 1.6 above that the Plan has made adequate provision for housing, I am satisfied that its exclusion from the development envelope is correct.”

This is outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval seeking consent in principle for development of site comprising an integrated care facility.

Illustrative plans indicate two storey block totalling some 1,500 square metres centrally positioned within site, set back some 45 metres from Appley Road frontage. Site is shown to be served with parking area to west of proposed building served off new enlarged vehicular access.

Applicant advises that application is project which seeks to provide modern, purpose built state of the art care facilities for elderly providing facilities on a scale where they can be economically viable and allowing provision of integrated care which progresses from external support through residential care to full nursing home facilities. It is also intended that building will provide local centre for support services to those in their own homes, provide facilities to add support for those in area whilst encouraging transport links to centre and liaising with St Mary’s Hospital.

Briefly, proposed complex will provide twelve sheltered/very sheltered residential units and twenty four nursing bed units together with dining facilities for residents and elderly in area, community facilities for residents and elderly in locality which could include sub-post office and shop. Accommodation also allow centre for training and day centre support for those in their own homes, an administrative centre for help at home services and ancillary and support functions. It is understood that provision of ancillary services could be subject to negotiation were provision of such facilities problematical.

Agent also advises that Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society is a registered social landlord and charity, and independently constituted organisation which operates under umbrella of National Abbeyfield Society comprising over 600 societies of which there are eight other societies on the Island. Provision of intensive support for elderly will be available to take residents from other societies effectively freeing up sheltered accommodation all over Island.

Society has history of providing care on the Island for elderly and has existing facility in Partlands Avenue with nineteen beds which cannot be upgraded or enlarged for variety of technical reasons. Without this alteration or provision of new facility operation will have to close and a new site is therefore sought for target area of Ryde stretching through to Seaview. Ideal site, agent advises, is therefore somewhere on edge of Ryde, greatest centre of population but with good transport links to Seaview. Other key requirements are considered to be good public transport links, particularly for staff and visitors, level site to minimise wheelchair and access problems, population base immediately adjacent to provide employees and future residents, minimum site constraints to allow new facility to be built to higher standards and a pleasant setting within quiet environment.

In support of application agent advises that proposed site at Appley meets all functional criteria set, i.e. site is well placed on edge of Ryde with good access to Seaview, is on a main bus route, is accessible by local population either as staff at centre or as local residents requiring support services, and site is relatively level, quiet and in semi-rural environment.

Letters of support also accompanied application. These have been received from firstly, Chairman of Isle of Wight NHS Health Authority who generally support any initiative that increases number of high quality nursing beds available on Island. Second letter of support received from Director of Social Services and Housing who supports development of this care scheme which is seen as providing flexible services to meet needs of older people living in the community. Given current shortage of nursing home beds a purpose built “dual registered” home will provide much needed resource to meet existing demands. Third letter of support received from Ryde medical practice who are happy to give professional support in recognition of high standard of care that the association has given to many patients over the years. Further letter of support received from portfolio holder of Social Services Select Committee.

Details of public consultation undertaken with local residents is also enclosed with application. In general, comments contained within summary indicate support for proposal.

PPG7 - The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development.

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites) rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites. Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists.

S3 - New developments of a large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to defined development envelopes of the main Island towns of Cowes/East Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Sandown/Shanklin.

S5 - Proposals for development which, on balance, will be for the overall benefit of Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

S11 - Land use policies and proposals to reduce the impact of and reliance of the private car will be adopted and the Council will aim to encourage the development of an effective, efficient and integrated transport network.

G2 - Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes.

H1 - Major New Residential Developments to be Located Within the Main Island Towns.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

U1 - The Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Education Services.

Council's Ecology Officer has inspected hedgerow which fronts site and assessed it against criteria of Hedgerow Regulations. Hedge has continuous feature and has been well managed with only gap being at eastern end where Seaclean Wight pipeline was constructed, this gap has now been replanted as part of restoration programme. Given number of species within hedge it does not qualify as important under Wildlife and Landscape criteria of Regulations. However, the hedge does have wildlife value as it provides suitable nesting and feeding areas for birds. If it has to be removed this should take place between August to February inclusive to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. There is evidence of a larger animal crossing bank at one point, possible of foraging badger, but field does not appear to be suitable habitat for a sett. Legislation does not give protection to such foraging areas.

County Archaeologist advises that proposal concerns a Site of Archaeological Interest with previous archaeological observation recording prehistoric finds scatter of significant quantity within the boundaries of the proposed development site. Any proposed development which involves ground disturbance is likely to destroy surviving archaeological remains, therefore, in order that features may be adequately recorded it is recommended that developer is required to commission an independent archaeological body to undertake a Watching Brief during development. It is recommended therefore that any approval is made subject to an appropriate condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be agreed prior to any development taking place.

Twenty eight letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal. Objections can be summarised as follows:

Development of a greenfield site which is located outside development envelope boundary.

Proximity of industrial premises in locality with resultant risk of air and noise pollution.

Two local post offices have raised objection in terms of loss of trade and over provision of service in locality. Members will appreciate that such a matter is not material planning considerations.

Pondwell Residents Association object to application on grounds of site being greenfield, unallocated within Unitary Development Plan, site forming part of strategic gap between Ryde and Seaview and setting of precedent. Other comments relate to disturbance in locality, adverse impact on tourism, Government policy in seeking to develop brownfield sites before greenfield ones.

Facilities provided on site which will lead to greatly increased activity in locality.

In determining this application consideration must be given to the following issues:

Members will be aware that Section 54A of Act requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with adopted policy unless there are material considerations which would indicate otherwise.

It is generally agreed by both parties that this development providing an integrated care facility is primarily a residential use with associated ancillary facilities. It is therefore considered appropriate that proposed development must be tested against national and local policies for housing provision and in this context PPG3 and UDP policies G5, H1, H4 and H9 are particularly relevant.

Local Authorities are required by PPG3 to adopt a sequential approach when dealing with new residential development schemes. Such schemes in the first instance should ideally be located on previously developed land within built-up areas and it is only if such sites are not available then consideration should be given to development of greenfield sites initially within and subsequently outside but close to defined settlements. Only if no such sites are available within these categories should Planning Authorities consider development of sites outside development envelopes and then only if it can be shown that there is an overriding need. This approach supports concept of creating and maintaining sustainable communities which minimise need for private car usage.

Whilst it is appreciated that applicant has considered fourteen other sites for proposed integrated care scheme and tested each other against specific criteria, some sites appear to be acceptable in land use terms whilst other potential sites have not been analysed. Furthermore, possibility of applicants providing affordable housing element in redevelopment sites has not been considered. It is not felt therefore that a sequential test has been carried out with sufficient rigour to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that it would be appropriate to allow this development on the grounds of being sequentially appropriate.

Policy H5 is specific in stating that the majority of new residential development will be expected to be located within defined development envelopes of main settlements and that applications for major residential schemes outside such settlements will not be permitted. Similarly Policy H4 accepts principle of new residential development on sites not allocated within Plan, providing they are within development envelopes of defined settlements. Given that proposal does not fall within one of the types of development that may be exceptionally permitted outside defined settlements in policies H9 and G5 it is considered that proposal fails fundamentally as far as policy is concerned.

Recent advice from GOSE confirms that the definition of housing covers all new housing development and includes special needs housing such as that for the elderly. It further confirms that the principles of location, design, mixed communities described in PPG3 apply to all housing forms including special needs. In terms of considering proposal as rural exception policy for provision of affordable housing, whilst applicant is registered social landlord and can be considered to be providing affordable housing, development in this location is not considered to meet requirements of Policy H15 which allows exceptionally for small scale residential development on sites in, or adjoining villages to help meet the needs of local people. Guidance contained within Annex B of PPG3 also repeats need for such sites to be within or adjoining existing villages. Application site being located immediately adjoining built-up settlement of Ryde does not meet this criteria. The development is therefore considered contrary to Policy H15.

Finally, Members should note that whilst the scheme is considered to constitute housing for policy purposes, reference should also be made to Policy U9 which deals with residential care and nursing home development. Policy advises that such accommodation will not be approved unless specific criteria are met. Amongst measures to be met are that size can be assimilated into locality, there is easy access to public transport and that site is within easy walking distance of the amenities of the settlement. As location of proposed development fails to meet these criteria this would appear to further indicate site’s inappropriate location in land use terms. Notwithstanding major policy objections to proposal outlined above, there are other matters which will be considered individually in subsequent sections of this evaluation.

Application site is currently agricultural land which has been identified by MAFF as being Grade 2 (very good) and advice contained within PPG7 (as revised) advises that development of greenfield land, including the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development on previously developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas. Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable Local Planning Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations suggest otherwise. This approach is backed up by UDP Policy C14 which advises that loss of such land will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is an essential need for development affecting agricultural land which cannot be met elsewhere. In such a case the best and most versatile land should not be used if suitable lower quality land is available.

Furthermore, Inspector, in dealing with objection at UDP process, noted land quality classification and, on this basis, given that sufficient land had been allocated for residential development, was satisfied that site should not be included within development envelope boundary.

Visual Impact and Effect of Character of Site and Surrounding Area Including Amenities of Nearby Residents

Whilst site is located between existing residential development to east and west, site clearly provides important visual gap between established settlement of Ryde and more sporadic development to east which has resulted from incremental development prior to previous Local Plan adoption.

Whilst it is appreciated that footprint of building is relatively small in comparison to area of application site, it should be appreciated that illustrative plans indicate area of land between proposed building and residential development in Grasmere Avenue will be used as parking area and these works, together with provision of highway visibility splays resulting in loss of length of hedgerow together with potential provision of new bus layby, would present more urban appearance and the existing rural character of site which provides important visual marker in identifying edge of town boundary would be lost. As far as impact on occupiers of nearby dwelling houses is concerned there is clearly, as referred to in representations received, perception that there will be an increase in amount of traffic in locality as a result of development as proposed.

It is reasonable to assume that there will be an increase in traffic movement above levels presently experienced but against this must be set view of Highway Engineer that with improvements and appropriate conditions road network is technically adequate to cater for additional traffic anticipated. Given site’s location and characteristics and given technical acceptability of proposal it is not felt that reason for refusal on basis of impact on highway safety or residential amenity could be easily substantiated.

PPG13 guidance seeks to ensure that new development should be located so as to minimise need to travel and to reduce reliance on private car. UDP policies follow this presumption as can be evidenced by policies S1 and S3 which indicate that new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas and that new developments of large scale will be expected to locate in or adjacent the defined development envelopes of main towns. Similarly Policy TR3 which supports proposals which minimise need to travel and advise that Council will seek to locate new developments which create significant travel demand within existing defined settlements which are easily accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot.

It must however, be accepted that not every resident or visitor will be able or willing to take advantage of public transport system nor indeed staff operating shift systems and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the number of private car journeys that are likely to be generated will be significant, particularly given extent and type of community facilities that may be on offer, for example day centre, sub-post office/retail outlet, visiting medical staff and other ancillary activities.

As proposal is new development which could clearly create significant travel demand under Policy TR3 it should be located within existing defined settlements and be easily accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot. Location on edge of town, given relative position to town centre and topography of land in locality is likely to result in access by bicycle or on foot being unlikely be realistic option.

Members should also note that Policy TR4 requires major development which, by their nature will attract a significant number of persons, to include a supporting statement which shows how the proposal has addressed the need to reduce travel to and from the development by car. The Council will require to be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken to provide for public transport, bicycle and foot travel before approving any such applications.

In view of the above comments I consider that proposal does not comply either with Policy TR3 or TR4 as proposal is likely to generate a significant number of additional car journeys and application is not accompanied by a detailed statement of intent and practices which include measures that seek to reduce the reliance on private car usage.

Council’s Ecology Officer has inspected site and confirmed that hedgerow is not “important” as defined within Hedgerow Regulations and therefore there is no fundamental objection to loss of feature, although visual impact of such works have been referred to in earlier section of this report. Furthermore, application site does not appear to offer suitable habitat for protected species. In view of these comments there is no sustainable reason to refuse development on grounds of effect on protected or endangered species or their habitat.

Southern Water have been consulted seeking comment from them in respect of capacity of existing drainage system and any comments received will be reported at Committee.

It is not considered that three are any human rights implications in connection with this particular application.

Proposal represents significant specialist residential development on edge of development envelope within location which is countryside for planning policy purposes. For reasons outlined above it does not comply with principles of sustainable development set out in PPG3 and 13 and is contrary to policies of UDP relating to residential development in the countryside which seeks to minimise need to travel by private car. Additionally, development would adversely impact on character of site and results in loss of high quality agricultural land, again contrary to policy.

This application was the subject of a joint report to this Committee at the meeting held on 17 September 2002 where Members resolved to approve application TCP/24915: - continued use of building for the manufacture of pet hutches and to defer this application in order for Officers to carry out investigation and negotiation particularly in respect of the need for any work to the stored boats and ways of restricting access to the site. Alterations have been made to the original report to reflect the additional information which has been received.

Ashengrove consists of a series of former agricultural buildings housing a number of uses and is accessed via a single width unmade track from Newport/Calbourne Road which continues through the farm yard to access farm land to the north of the site. The buildings consist of timber framed breeze block/corrugated iron sheet buildings with corrugated sheet roofing. Access to the site is restricted by a gate adjacent to the buildings, which is controlled by a combination lock.

TCP/6137/K - Change of use of agricultural building to boat store repairs, approved with conditions, February 1991

TCP/6137/L – Continued use of farm buildings for storage of boats and dinghies out of season, approved with conditions, June 1991

TCP/6137/M – Variation of conditions 2 & 3 on TCP/6137/K to allow repair and testing of outboard motors within buildings, approved with conditions, January 1994

TCP/6137/N – Variation of condition 2 on TCP/6137/M to allow sales of outboard engines and associated accessories within workshop area, approved May 1994

TCP/6137/P – Variation of condition 4 on TCP/6137/L to allow the display and storage of farm produced timber, approved May 1994

The application relates to the variation of a condition attached to TCP/6137/L to allow the storage of boats and dinghies all year around.

The application lies within the historic garden designation of Swainston Manor and policy B10 ‘Park and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest’ applies. Proposals which adversely affect an Historic Park or Garden or its setting directly or indirectly, will not be permitted. Policy E10 ‘Warehouse and Storage Uses’ requires the site to be suitably located with good highway access, the type of storage is compatible with the neighbouring uses in the locality, the design and appearance of the buildings and level of landscaping proposed are acceptable.

Calbourne Parish Council have no objection to the storage of boats at Ashengrove.

 Large items such as boats and equipment should not be stored outside buildings.

 The overall appearance of the site as a whole is of ‘unplanned and unsightly development’ with ‘visually inappropriate signage at the main road in recent years’.

 The development of the site is inappropriate within the boundary of a historic park of national importance.

One letter of representation has been received from a local resident, the main points of objection are summarised as follows: (however the full letter, not incuding appendices, has been included as an Appendix to this report.)

 The proposals are in contradiction of the PPG 18 (Enforcing Planning Control) and should be dismissed.

 The planning applications are inaccurate and misleading and therefore should be dismissed, TCP/6137/X should include reference to access to the storage facilities. TCP/24915 has misleading description.

 ‘The applicants are acting in bad faith and currently are in breach of 23 planning conditions grossly violating our amenity.’

 ‘For several years we have conducted a good neighbour policy, which has been thrown back at us by applicants, who do not care for our amenity and who arrogantly act as though they are beyond reproach.’

 Kevin Mole has outgrown the site and should be moved by the Council to another site.

 Activity on the whole site including ‘Timbercraft’ has greatly increased since 1994, many planning permissions are being violated.

 Feel let down by the Council as enforcement of planning restrictions is non-existent, particularly out of hours.

 Mr Mole has deliberately not informed clients of planning restrictions, allowing unlimited access to the site.

 A considerable number and variety of power tools are employed on site, the noise from operations causes great distress.

Application TCP/06137/X relates to the variation of a condition attached to TCP/6137/L to allow the storage of boats and dinghies all year around. Planning permission was originally granted in 1991 for the continued use of the buildings for the storage of boats and dinghies out of season, covering an area of building of some 126 square metres. Conditions attached to the permission restricted the use of the building to the storage of boats only and no outside storage of the following nature ‘no equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials or waste shall be staked or stored on the site’. Condition three states ‘the use hereby approved shall not be undertaken between the months of May and September inclusive in any one year’. The reason attached to this condition states ‘the site is in a rural area where storage uses other than for agricultural purposes would not normally be permitted, and to ensure that the building is retained in part for agricultural uses appropriate to its location.’ There was no condition restricting the hours of access to the premises.

The application seeks to vary condition three to allow all year round storage at the building. A recent site visit revealed that there were four rigid inflatable boats (ribs) and five wooden dinghies currently being stored within the building. The applicant has advised that although boats are still stored out of season by appointment, ribs owned by Ventnor “Sea Otters” are also stored on the premises and used on an occasional basis throughout the year and such customers have free access to the premises, returning boats to storage when not in use. The applicant estimates that the ribs used by the Sea Otters are used approximately once a month, being removed on Friday afternoon and returned Sunday afternoon.

Policy E10 ‘Warehouse and Storage Uses’ of the IW Unitary Development Plan requires the site to be suitably located with good highway access, the type of storage is compatible with the neighbouring uses in the locality, the design and appearance of the buildings and level of landscaping proposed are acceptable. Although an inland site is not the most obvious location for the storage of boats, the site is easily accessed from the Newport/Calbourne Road and the Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the application. The building itself is part of a former cow shed and has been used for storing boats for over 10 years. There is no lighting or electricity available to those storing boats in the building. Due to this any repair work undertaken on boats is likely to consist of low key running repairs.

Following a meeting with the applicant, the owner of the land and one of the existing tenants, further background information has been provided. It is clear that in conjunction with the storage of boats within the buildings, owners would normally expect to be able to carry out minor running repairs to the craft, for instance repairing rigging, painting or vanishing and anti-fouling and this has been confirmed by the applicant in a letter which has been included as an Appendix to this report. Although a number of the boats are stored on a long term basis while their owners are abroad, other owners regard their boats in the same way as an owner might regard a valuable car and may wish to access the premises during their leisure time in order to carry out cosmetic work. These activities are considered to be of a minor ancillary nature for which a separate planning permission would not be necessary. However, to ensure that no activities of a more intensive nature are carried out, restrictive conditions could be imposed on any planning consent.

The access track to the buildings at Ashengrove continues through the yard to provide access to agricultural land to the north and as a general right of way, is used at all times to provide this access and this is explained in a letter from the owner of the site, which is provided as an Appendix to this report. For the reasons set out in the letter, it is not seen as reasonable to restrict the hours and time of access to the building in order to deliver or remove boats. Additionally, several of the premises at Ashengrove (including the application site) have conditions restricting the hours of operation by specifically mentioning activities which are prohibited, ie the use of power tools or machinery, but this does not restrict owners from visiting the site outside the hours of operation stated. On balance, it is considered that a condition restricting access to the site would be likely to be unacceptably restrictive in agricultural terms and difficult to enforce because it would not be possible to identify which access road users were visiting non-agricultural uses. However a condition restricting the hours of use of power tools would be appropriate and enforceable.

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 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.

The building under consideration has been used for boat storage for more than 10 years. The nature of storage has changed over this time and there is now a need to store boats during the summer months and to remove them from storage and to return them to storage on an occasional basis. The proposal conforms with Policy E10 ‘Warehouse and Storage Uses’ and it is considered that in removing the original condition and the inclusion of several new conditions, there would be no adverse impact on the historic garden designation as required by Policy B10.

Report requested by Local Member as the applicant is known to him and he is unable to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Application relates to roughly rectangular site located on corner of the Mall and Amos Hill, virtually opposite the former Readers factory site. Site presently forms part of garden area to dwelling which is set further back from and elevated above the Mall. Site is accessed from the Mall which is an unmade and unadopted road. Ground level within site is at lower level to remainder of curtilage of property, to be retained with the existing dwelling.

TCP/7258D/P1343/98 - outline for chalet bungalow with access off Amos Hill refused in January 1999 on grounds that size of plot was significantly smaller than adjoining properties and would introduce form of development detrimental to the visual character and amenities of the locality; proposal would result in damage or consequential loss of preserved oak tree and that proposal would set precedent for future applications of a similar nature.

Outline planning permission is sought for chalet bungalow and garage with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Original submission was accompanied by illustrative plans showing chalet bungalow fronting the Mall with garage to rear accessed over existing driveway which would also serve the original dwelling. Following inspection of site by Council's Tree and Landscape Officer and further discussions with the applicant's agent, revised plans were submitted showing formation of new driveway from Amos Hill to serve existing dwelling and repositioning of proposed dwelling and garage together with realignment of driveway in order to minimise risk of proposal having adverse effect on protected oak tree on corner of the Mall and Amos Hill. Applicant's agent also confirmed in writing that access and siting are now to be considered as part of this application.

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

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

County Archaeologist advises that proposal is on a Site of Archaeological Importance and therefore recommends condition should application be approved to ensure access to site by Officers to record finds of importance.

Council's Tree and Landscape Officer initially advised that proposal, in submitted form, should be refused although she would recommend approval of building on plot in principle subject to a number of changes to the layout. These generally involved repositioning the building closer to the western boundary to provide adequate clearance to an excellent oak tree in the northeastern corner and whilst this may impact on a tulip tree and a purple beech in the northwestern corner, these were not considered to be worth retaining. She also suggested alterations to the position of the means of access to the dwelling to include realigning the existing driveway and constructing a new driveway to serve the proposed dwelling off Amos Hill.

Following submission of revised plans, further comments were received from the Tree and Landscape Officer advising that the proposed layout is far less unacceptable than the previous ones. In particular, she considered that it would be possible to retain the protected trees, especially the oak in the northeastern corner and although she considered that the new driveway off Amos Hill may still damage the oak tree on that frontage, it was considered that this could be minimised if builders follow appropriate guidance in BS5837. Therefore, she recommended that, should application be approved, permission should be subject to a condition requiring erection of protective fencing around the preserved oak trees.

Size of plot is significantly smaller than adjoining properties and proposal would introduce form of development that would be detrimental to the visual character and amenities of the area.

Proposal would set precedent for future applications on neighbouring properties and would spoil character of area.

The Parish Councillors realise that the development opposite on the Readers site has probably promoted this application, similar to one refused in February 1999 but they do not consider that this is justification for granting permission.

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

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether there has been any change in circumstances since previous refusal of permission to justify different decision.

Having regard to location of site within the defined settlement, I am satisfied that its development for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, subject to proposals satisfying more detailed design criteria.

The area of land, the subject of the previous application, had a frontage to the Mall of approximately 21 metres, narrowing to 15 metres with depth of 19 metres and excluded the area of land over which the access drive to the existing property passes. In the case of the current application, plot size has been increased, by including within the site the driveway to the original property and providing a new driveway to serve that property. This has resulted in an increase in the average width of the plot to approximately 26 metres and average depth has been increased to approximately 22 metres. I consider that this plot is now comparable with other sites in the area, and in particular, the property on the opposite corner of the Mall and Amos Hill. In addition, Members will be familiar with development on site of former Readers factory, which is presently under construction, and involves a higher density than the longer established development in the locality.

Whilst it is likely that the proposal would result in the loss of two trees, a tulip tree and a beech, adjacent the eastern boundary of the site, it should be noted that, on the basis that one of these is almost dead and the other is not well shaped, the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer sees no sustainable objection to their removal. Removal of these trees and realignment of the driveway facilitates the repositioning of the proposed dwelling, moving it further from the preserved oak tree in the northeastern corner of the site. Should Members be minded to approve the application, I consider it would be appropriate to impose a condition requiring landscaping to be carried out, to include appropriate species as replacement trees for those to be removed.

Position of property on a corner plot enables applicant to form separate access from Amos Hill to serve the existing dwelling. Having regard to this factor and position of the existing dwelling, elevated above the application site, I do not consider that proposal would give rise to an unacceptable arrangement of dwellings which would otherwise prejudice the amenities of the occupants of either property. Furthermore, I do not consider that this type of development on a corner plot could be easily repeated in the immediate locality and would not, therefore, set a precedent for future proposals.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties has 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 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 interests.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the site, the subject of this application, is of a sufficient size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings and would not detract from the character of the locality or the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers. In particular, I consider that the proposal, as detailed in the submission, and the circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a different decision to the previous application.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Covering letter advising applicant that work close to preserved trees should be carried out with care and in accordance with BS5837)

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all (trees/shrubs and/or other natural features), not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) No placement or storage of material;

(b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals.

(d) No lighting of bonfires.

(e) No physical damage to bark or branches.

(f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area.

(g) No changes in ground levels.

(h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers.

(i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged.

Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The application raises issues which need to be considered by Committee in the determination of the proposal.

Application relates to rectangular site which presently forms a garden area to detached dwelling which occupies corner site at junction of Tennyson Road and Victoria Road. Site is bounded to west by garages, accessed from unmade track off Tennyson Road, whilst to south is garden areas of adjacent properties.

There is no planning history in respect of the site which is considered to be relevant to the current proposal.

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey detached building to provide four one bedroomed flats. Units at ground floor would provide accommodation comprising lounge/dining room, mini kitchen, bathroom/W.C. and one bedroom. Units at first floor level would provide similar accommodation although kitchen would be located at one end of the lounge/dining room providing combined living space.

Submitted plans indicate that conservatory on western side of existing dwelling and garage on southern side would be demolished, the latter facilitating provision of a small courtyard area to serve the property.

Site is located within development boundary for Yarmouth as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition, site is adjacent but not within the Yarmouth Conservation Area. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Highway Engineer advises that covered secure parking for at least four cycles is required and confirms that if this is not provided in connection with the development, application should be refused on lack of provision.

Yarmouth Town Council raise no objection but would wish the following comments to be taken into account:

No parking spaces for four flats - there is a big problem in Yarmouth for parking at the moment.

Site is located on stretch of road with double yellow lines and bus stop immediately outside.

Application has attracted eleven letters, ten from local residents and one from the Yarmouth Society, objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Development out of keeping with surrounding area detrimental to character of locality.

No parking to be provided - impact of additional cars belonging to occupants and visitors in area where there is already a parking problem. Occupants will have no right to use adjacent garages or service road.

Proposal would generate standing vehicles on busy road close to junction and bus stops creating highway hazard.

Once resident comments on the large number of dwellings in the area owned as second homes which are only occupied for limited periods during the year and indicates that they would not object to current proposal as long as the flats are sold to a housing association.

One letter received from local resident in support of proposal who expresses view that proposal will have little effect on the street scene or create problems for property nearby. Furthermore, he considers that development, leading to an increase in the population of the town, would be of benefit to the economy of the area.

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

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether current proposal represents an acceptable form of development or would detract from character of locality and amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Following meeting with applicant's agent, during which Officers expressed concern with regard to the current proposal, letter has been submitted providing information in support of proposal which seeks to address the concerns raised. A copy of this letter is attached to this report as an appendix.

Site is located within development boundary for Yarmouth where development will generally be acceptable in principle subject to proposals satisfying more detailed design criteria.

Current proposal involves erection of a two storey building within garden area of property which would result in virtually total site coverage and will leave the existing dwelling with little amenity space. Southern (rear) elevation and west (side) elevation of proposed building would fall within approximately one metre of boundaries of site and development as proposed does not make provision for any amenity area for occupants of the proposed flats. In response to concerns regarding the proposal, applicant's agent has highlighted the housing problems in the locality and has expressed a view that the development would provide accommodation affordable to local first time buyers and local elderly wishing to down size, thereby allowing local people to remain in the town. Furthermore, with regard to the lack of amenity space, the applicant's agent indicates that the development is one of flats and, as such, does not look to provide external amenities (rotary washing lines and amenity spaces etc). Applicant's agent suggests that other flatted developments in the area do not provide these facilities and they do not consider it unreasonable with availability of modern washer/dryers etc. They also suggest that Yarmouth is rich in amenity space with green spaces within easy walking distance of the site.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing provides advice and guidance on a range of measures which can be employed to promote more sustainable patterns of development and places emphasis on concentrating development within existing urban 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. The guidance note advises that good design and layout of new development can help to achieve these objectives and improve the quality and attractiveness of residential areas. In this respect, the guidance note advises as follows:

" In seeking to achieve these objectives, Local Planning Authorities and developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts which make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment."

Whilst it is accepted that the proposed building is of a scale, design and general appearance which would not necessarily be out of place in the town of Yarmouth, it is necessary to have regard for the pattern of development in the immediate locality of the site and the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and, in particular, the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. In this instance, whilst development on the northern side of Tennyson Road is generally more dense, characterised largely by narrow fronted semi-detached and terraced properties, the area on the southern side of Tennyson Road is, in contrast, characterised by larger semi-detached and detached properties in more spacious surroundings. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would result in a density of development which is not considered to be compatible with its surroundings.

In terms of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, it is noted that care has been taken to minimise any overlooking of the adjacent gardens and, with the exception of one small landing window, which could be obscure glazed and fixed shut, all other windows are restricted to ground floor level. I am satisfied that any overlooking from these windows could be overcome by the erection of appropriate boundary treatment. However, proposal would result in a two storey building, close to the boundary with the adjacent property, running the full length of the garden. Therefore, I consider that this would result in an over dominant and unacceptable impact to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring property.

Whilst noting comments of local residents regarding lack of parking provision in connection with proposal, I do not consider that, in the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer in this respect, this would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. However, Highway Engineer would require provision of secure cycle parking which is not presently accommodated within the development and he therefore considers that application should be refused on these grounds.

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 (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the First Protocol 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 permission is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, whilst development would meet a demand for the type of housing identified in the Housing Needs Study and would deliver more housing at the cheaper end of the local housing market, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the locality and the amenities of the neighbouring residential property in particular.

The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of this site at an excessive density which would in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal makes insufficient provision for amenity space to be provided on the site, as well as leaving the existing dwelling with insufficient amenity space, and would be detrimental to the amenities of prospective occupiers of this development and the neighbouring property as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved. The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

Application relates to a wedge shaped site which accommodates a substantial red brick building used for office research and manufacture purposes situated on the south eastern side of Denmark Road almost opposite the junction of Granville Road bridge with Denmark Road. The area is characterised by established traditional residential development with a Victorian semi-detached pair of dwellings abutting to the south west and a relatively small narrow detached Victorian dwelling to the north east. The rear boundary abuts the rear of a group of terraced Victorian dwellings which front St Mary's Road. Site falls away from Denmark Road towards the rear boundary. Finally, the site also stands opposite the former Denmark Road school site currently used for public car parking purposes.

September 1996 - consent granted for two storey extension with high level windows, at rear of premises, minimum 1 metre, maximum 2.7 metres from rear boundaries of properties in St Mary's Road.

June 2001 - consent granted for removal of condition which restricted the use of the premises to Strainstall Ltd. That consent subject of a condition restricting the use to B1(C)(Light Industrial).

Outline consent, all matters reserved, is sought for seven dwelling houses providing three bedroomed accommodation, set on back edge of footpath.

Proposal indicates use of existing vehicular access in northern corner of the site to serve rear parking which illustrative proposal indicates five spaces to be located under a decked area with two remaining spaces being situated within the southern and western corner of the site. Illustrative proposal also indicates a three storey development with the second storey being within the roof space.

 Submitted plans should be seen as illustrative only, with particular reference to mass and height.

 "Strainstall are to relocate their premises to the Somerton Industrial Estate, therefore, this will not mean the loss of employment but the removal of an employment use which has a requirement for parking spaces in the area, much of it in side roads, to more appropriate site".

 Current building represents almost total ground coverage whereas proposed development could reduce that to approximately half.

 Residents of St Mary's Road will benefit from increased light and visual amenity due to loss of existing bulky building.

 Redevelopment of the site accords with Government policy in respect of development on brownfield sites and accords with UDP policies relating to relocation of non-conforming use to a more appropriate location.

 Proposal for housing in the form shown continues the theme of development in the area.

 Proposal is likely to relieve on-street parking problems in this part of Cowes.

Site is located within the development envelope boundary with relevant local plan policies being as follows:

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved, although makes the following observations:

"The proposed vehicular access gradient does not appear to be a problem as it has been placed at the low side of the site where the difference in level between the road and the application site is minimised. Ordinarily the gradient of an access should be maximum of 1:20 over the first five metres measured from the edge of carriage way with the balance not exceeding 1:8, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Significant front boundary brick fences exist either side of the property that do not appear to impede sight distances up the hill towards the oncoming traffic in this one-way street. To ensure maximum sight distance is created and maintained the proposed structure should not be designed, constructed or introduce gardens etc in such a way that would obstruct the visibility splay of x = 2.5 metres and y = maximum dimension looking uphill towards oncoming traffic.

The covered cycle storage area to be provided should be able to accommodate seven bicycles".

Contaminated Land Officer recommends appropriate conditions on the grounds that the site may have a potential for contamination.

Cowes Town Council raised no objection to the initial proposal but express concern about vehicular access to the site and would wish to see a single access to the rear to accommodate car parking. Following readvertisement of application which achieves the above Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

Initial application subject of two letters from Denmark Road residents, one from Granville Road resident and one from St Mary's Road resident. Also, extensive letter received from DRAG (Denmark Road Action Group). Summary of points raised are as follows:

Height and scale of original proposal considered excessive, out of keeping and over dominant and would have an adverse effect on immediate adjoining properties either side of the site and to the rear.

Original scheme indicated individual integral garages served directly off Denmark Road which would have resulted in loss of on-street parking.

Following readvertisement of the application a further two letters have been received, one from Granville Road resident, one from Denmark Road resident, comments summarised as follows:

Revised proposal results in loss of light to neighbouring property to south west.

Density excessive in comparison with adjoining theme of development in the area.

Omission of garages from the initial proposal should have enabled the block to be reduced to two storeys which would be a more compatible height of development within the context of Denmark Road.

Comparison has been made with other approved developments in the area and this proposal for a further three storey block will have an over dominating effect in the area.

Proposal fails to take account of the cross fall on the site with the block being excessive in height at the rear, resulting in an over dominant effect on neighbouring properties, with particular reference to the properties in St Mary's Road.

Question whether one parking space per unit will be sufficient. Size of the units suggest family occupancy which is likely to attract more than one car ownership, thus increasing pressures on on-street parking which has already reached saturation point.

Concern that if this development is carried out at the same time as other recently approved development in the area the resultant pressures by construction traffic will be untenable, with particular reference to the road systems being somewhat inadequate to accommodate such a level of construction traffic.

One objector has raised an issue relating to an access way and whether or not the site benefits from rights over that access way, however, this appears to be a civil matter and the writer and applicant have been advised.

Suitability of the principle of residential development, with particular reference to relating it to a Section 106 Agreement covering the transfer of the existing employment user.

Suitability of the siting, with particular reference to density in relation to the theme of development in the area.

Suitability of means of access, with particular reference to level of parking provision.

Suitability of the illustrative proposals, with particular respect to mass, height and impact on adjoining properties.

With regard to the first issue, the site's location within an area which is predominantly characterised by established residential development would suggest that it is entirely acceptable. The main issue however, is that such a proposal should not be at the expense of loss of employment and therefore Policy E3 which seeks to protect existing employment land and as a principle, resist any change of use of that land to those outside employment uses is important. However, that policy does have a caveat within the policy as follows:

"The development involves the relocation of a non-conforming use for an unsuitable existing site".

The commercial use of these premises has been taking place over a number of decades without any major detriment to the amenities of the residential properties which surround the site. Consultation with the Environmental Health Officer in respect of the removal of the condition which restricts the use to the current occupier resulted in confirmation that no complaints had been made in respect of the use of the building. The commercial use of the building does however generate a parking requirement which increases pressures on the on-street parking in the area and the public car parking nearby, with particular reference to the Denmark Road public car park. It is important to appreciate that public car park may not be available in the longer term, should the residential development which has approval take place.

The fact remains that this is a large building covering a substantial amount of the site in an area which is dominated by residential use. Therefore, its relocation to a more suitable plot on an industrial/employment site within the Cowes area would have benefits. However, I consider it is important that any residential approval on this site is subject to such relocation and on this basis the process has been set in motion through discussions between the Council's Legal Officers and the applicant's advisers. These discussions are ongoing, but as a result, the following areas to be subject to be subject to Section 106 Agreement have been identified:

1. Relocation of the existing business to new premises at Somerton within six months;

2. Reasonable endeavours to use the Somerton site for relocation and thereafter for carrying on the business;

3. All proceeds from Denmark Road sale used for relocation with any surplus proceeds invested in the business. Full production and inspection of documents and records for the Council in order to satisfy compliance;

4. During fitting out and up to relocation business to continue to trade from Denmark Road site;

5. No development at Denmark Road until Council's confirmation of satisfaction with item 3 above;

From the above Members will appreciate the care that is taken to ensure continuity of the business use and that the proposed residential development will not result in loss of employment but to the contrary will result in that business relocating to a more appropriate site. Such a process would not only protect employment but hopefully on the basis that the relocation site allows expansion of that business thus hopefully creating additional employment.

With regard to the second issue, obviously given the site's location within a largely residential area the principle of residential as an alternative use is acceptable. Proposal before Members seeks outline consent but also seeks consent for siting and means of access. In terms of the issue of siting, proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of locating the units hard up against the back of footpath and now the proposal indicates parking to the rear the principle of such a siting is considered to be acceptable. In density terms the proposal for seven units results in a density of approximately sixty three units per hectare (twenty six units per acre) which is an appropriate density the proposal therefore site's location close to the town centre.

In terms of the third issue the revised proposal now indicates one access with provision of parking to the rear. The access which has been indicated is an existing access and therefore there should be minimal loss of on-street parking if at all. The level of parking provision is on

a "one for one" basis, which, in terms of parking policies, is acceptable. The site is situated within Zone 2 which requires maximum of 0-50% of parking guidelines and given the proposal, therefore accords with sustainable transport policies.

With regard to the final issue, much of the concerns being expressed by local residents relate to height and mass and the resultant environmental impact that the proposal may have on adjoining properties. Illustrative drawings submitted show three floors to accommodation fronting onto Denmark Road, with the upper floor accommodated in the roof space. Thus the eaves and ridge height of the proposed building would relate well to the two storey dwellings either side.

Whilst scale and mass onto Denmark Road are considered reasonable as shown on the illustrative drawings, the design of the dwellings, including the way in which any accommodation in the roof space is handled, will need to be addressed in any reserved matters submission. Due to falls across the site from front to rear, consideration will also have to be given to the treatment of the rear elevations, which will effectively provide four levels of accommodation, with parking at a lower level than Denmark Road, and the three floors of living accommodation above. It should be noted in this context, that the main rear wall of the proposed dwellings is shown to be a minimum of 8.5m, maximum of 14.5 m from the rear boundaries of properties in St Mary's Road, rather than the 1 metre - 2.7 metres of the existing building.

The issue of drainage has been raised with the applicant, who has been advised that the sewer in Denmark Road is a combined sewer and in the case of Denmark Road car park site Southern Water were not prepared to allow that sewer to be used for drainage of either foul or surface water from that particular site. Obviously, drainage outlets from the existing commercial use takes place and it is assumed that this drains into this combined sewer. I anticipate that there will be no increase in surface water discharge from the site, if anything this could be less. However, there may be increase in foul drainage from the site but in any event I consider the matter can be covered by conditions.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties has 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.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that all relevant material policies have been addressed and subject to finalisation of the Section 106 Agreement approval is appropriate. I am also satisfied that all outstanding issues referred to under Representations can adequately be considered at the detail or reserved matter stage.

(Subject to the completion of an agreement under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 under the broad headings as set out in the report but in terms finally agreed by the Head of Legal & Democratic Services in order to complete the agreement with obligations and requirements as may be necessary to achieve the Council's intentions).

That a covering letter be sent with the decision notice, drawing the applicant's attention to the need for sensitive handling of the design issues arising from the scheme, including the treatment of both front and rear elevations and the way in which any accommodation in the roof space is dealt with in terms of external appearance.

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations in addition to report being requested by a Member.

Application relates to land situated immediately south of Millgrove residential estate and which forms north eastern corner of Brickfields Equestrian Centre complex.

Site is presently served and bounded to west and south by a public footpath system and presently comprises grazing land.

TCP/14537D - stable block comprising eight stables, two store rooms and two tack rooms with access off public footpath system - refused April 2002 on grounds that access to application site, involving public footpath, was considered both unsatisfactory and inappropriate to serve the proposed development and would be likely to create nuisance to users of public footpath system and add to hazards of pedestrian traffic contrary to UDP policy.

In terms of proposed building application, it is identical to previous submission which was decided in April of this year.

Briefly, application seeks consent to construct stable block measuring 22.75 metres long by 9.75 metres wide, having height to ridge of some 5 metres. Building itself would comprise two store rooms, two tack rooms and eight stable units served off central corridor and constructed in dark stained horizontal timber cladding under plastic coated steel clad roof.

Building would have north south orientation and be located close to adjacent public footpath R41/40 and a minimum distance of some 50 metres to nearest residential curtilage.

Main difference with current submission is intention of applicant to rededicate footpath R40 from Cleavers Close to Dame Anthony's Common as a bridleway in order to serve proposed stable building.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy allows for development outside defined settlements connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities and also recreation and sports activities appropriate to countryside and appropriate small scale rural tourism development.

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

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside. Policy allows for such structures for the keeping of horses for recreational purposes and advises such development will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming visual amenity of countryside for occupiers of adjoining land or buildings, they are of a scale, design and construction appropriate for the location and are of timber construction and conditions and/or legal agreements are applied to prevent incremental development, such as feed stores, tack rooms, mobile field shelters, caravans or similar structures.

C24 - Commercial Riding Establishments. Applications for new commercial riding establishments and extensions to existing premises will be approved where it involves the reuse of an existing farm complex, minimises any impact on adjoining residential occupiers, will not result in unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles on nearby road network and they have direct access to the rights of way network.

Environmental Health Officer recommends the imposition of conditions relating to prohibition on burning of manure and stable waste on site and prohibiting storage of material on site.

Rights of Way Officer comments that it is assumed that it is the intention of the applicant to dedicate bridleway rights over footpaths R40 and R41 between Cleavers Close and bridleway 38 in Dame Anthony's Common. This would provide additional off-road riding in the area and therefore accord with the principle in the Rights of Way Strategy to increase such facilities for horse riders and cyclists. However, the Council would only enter into such an agreement if, following consultation locally, it were satisfied that the dedication would not be detrimental to the householders in Cleavers Close and regular walkers of the footpath. It could, however, be inferred from the plans that the intention is only to dedicate bridleway rights over a length of R40 between the radio mast and the new stable block. This would have no public benefit and would not be legally achievable as there will be no continuity for riders.

He goes on to advise that regardless of whether access to stable block is over a footpath or bridleway, there will be no right for public to drive a motor vehicle along these routes. However, in his opinion the landowner would not be committing an offence if he drove a motor vehicle on the footway/bridleway and he could extend permission to his guests or tenants. Having said that, any vehicular use must not cause a nuisance to other users of the paths and if it did the Council would need to take action. He remains sceptical that eight stables could be serviced without frequent vehicular access and this continues to be an issue of concern. As previously mentioned, even if landowner had vehicular rights over a particular route within the dedication his use of them might nevertheless constitute a statutory or common-law nuisance in certain circumstances. This may be the situation with day-to-day management. He also remains concerned that potential damage and nuisance which may ensue from construction traffic using footpaths R40 and R41.

Two letters have been received supporting proposal with writers expressing view that proposed use will provide employment opportunities whilst involving appropriate land use and providing important social activity.

Twenty four letters have been received objecting to proposal. Objections can be summarised as follows:

Disamenity caused by reason of noise, smell, fly infestation and increase in rodent population.

Problems relating to enforcement and monitoring of use of site and footpath/bridleway system.

Increased use of footpath/bridleway system to serve proposed stables and potential conflict/danger to footway users.

The Ramblers' Association object to proposal with grounds of objection referring to issues summarised in previous paragraph. Association strongly object to any rededication of footpath to bridleway as they consider there is no basis or justification for this upgrade and such a change will not achieve any benefit for public and result in degradation of route and damage to surface. Furthermore they consider delivery of feed and bedding will also be required and with such extra number of horses traffic movements will be considerably increased which will lead to further deterioration of track and severe conflict with extensive pedestrian use of footway system. They also express their intention to oppose any attempts to upgrade public footpath R40 and any such application should be made prior to Planning Committee consideration.

A further letter received from the Ramblers Association confirms objection to application on grounds of further incursion into an area of open farm and woodland, contravention of UDP policy, outside development envelope and extra vehicular traffic.

As with previous application main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of development in rural location, in particular its visual impact together with matters relating to means of access.

Previous report to Members when dealing with similar proposal advised that policies within UDP allow for development outside defined settlements connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities, recreation and sports activities appropriate to the countryside, appropriate small scale rural tourism development and/or appropriate small scale development to create or sustain rural employment. In addition, Policy C23 advises that in respect of applications for stables and field shelters for recreational purposes such development will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harm to visual amenity, are of small scale and are designed and constructed appropriately for location. Policy C24 deals with extensions to existing commercial riding establishments which will be approved where they involve reuse of existing farm complex or group of farm buildings, minimise impact on adjoining residential occupiers, will not result in unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles on nearby road network and have direct access to rights of way network.

Given previous decision on this site it is considered there is no reasonable objection in principle to further provision of stable block in this location and as advised by Environmental Health Officer, given distance to nearest residential property, provided appropriate conditions are attached to any consent it is not felt that building itself and associated usage will have any undue detrimental impact on amenities of nearest residential properties.

Main consideration therefore relates to means of access to application site and appropriateness of such access to serve development proposed.

Previous proposal was refused on grounds that site was served by existing public footpath which was not considered suitable to serve proposed use and any such usage would be likely to create nuisance to users of the public footpath system and add to hazards of pedestrian traffic.

Application seeks to overcome previous objection by seeking to provide commitment to rededicate footpath R40 from Cleavers Close to Dame Anthony's Common to bridleway status.

For Members' information any application to alter the status of a footpath will require a Dedication Agreement under Section 25 of the Highway Act and whilst there is no legal requirement to involve public in such a process, policy of Council in respect of this procedure is to consult both Ramblers Association and local residents. In assessing any such application the Council will assess the potential conflict between riders and walkers as a material consideration and the matter will be formally decided by the Regulatory Appeals Committee. As planning application has attracted considerable level of opposition it is reasonable to assume that any such application for rededication is likely to attract similar public opposition, however, this will be a matter for the appropriate Committee when considering such an application. Whilst it is possible for Council to approve this application subject to a Grampian condition, i.e. requiring rededication prior to issue of planning consent, guidance contained within relevant circular (11/95) advises that, generally speaking, there should be at least reasonable prospects of the action in question being performed within the time limit imposed by any permission.

Notwithstanding the appropriateness of such a Grampian condition, a view needs to be taken as to whether or not public right of way in whatever form is suitable and appropriate means of access to serve proposed development.

It is reasonable to assume that provision of eight stable units at this location will result in increased usage of public right of way (whether rededicated or not) given its relative remoteness, day-to-day usage of building together with essential deliveries which will also inevitably involve vehicles, thereby increasing potential for conflict between all users of public footpath system. As Rights of Way Officer points out, any vehicular use must not cause a nuisance to other users of paths and if this were the case this could constitute nuisance at common-law and would be a matter for the Local Authority. It should also be noted that whilst general wear and tear and maintenance of rights of way is primarily the responsibility of the Highway Authority this is in respect of maintenance of surface and any greater damage could involve Council seeking costs from owner to repair such damage.

Footway system in locality is generally well used and I consider that proposed development will inevitably increase usage of rights of way which serve development to an unacceptable extent. It is likely that such increased usage will involve vehicular movements on a day to day basis and operation of the site will conflict with other users of the rights of way system and would therefore conflict with intention of UDP policy which seeks to ensure development provides for safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, cyclists and pedestrians whilst maintaining safety of all road users.

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that access to the site, whether by public footpath or bridleway, is considered to be inappropriate contrary to policies of Unitary Development Plan and therefore represents a fundamental objection to the proposal and the application is recommended accordingly.

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

The application site is situated within the small rural settlement of Gatcombe. Little Gatcombe Farm is situated on Newbarn Lane where it turns from a metalled single track lane to a track and at the junction of several bridleways and Shepherds Trail; a long distance footpath.

TCP/19227 – Outline for farm cottage and garage, Part OS 5525, NE of Little Gatcombe Farm, opposite Snowdrop Cottage, Gatcombe, Isle of Wight, refused June 1987, allowed on appeal February 1988.

TCP/19227/A - Reserved matters application for farm cottage and garage, Little Gatcombe Farm, Gatcombe, Isle of Wight, approved May 1988

The application is for the retention of a conservatory attached to the Little Gatcombe Farm, and a sand school, which is situated to the north east of the farmhouse, adjacent to Newbarn Lane. Permission has also been applied for the continued use of part of the garden for a tea room; this area is situated immediately to the west of the house adjacent to Newbarn Lane, finally the continued use of a barn for occasional livery involves the existing barn situated north east of the farm house and adjacent to Newbarn Lane.

Given the retrospective nature of the proposals, PPG 18 ‘Enforcing Planning Control’ is relevant. Paragraph 6 of this advice states that ‘in assessing the need for enforcement action, LPAs should bear in mind that it is not an offence to carry out development without first obtaining any planning permission required for it. New section 73A of the 1990 Act specifically provides that a grant of planning permission may relate to development carried out before the date of the application.’ Additionally the advice continues that ‘where the LPA's assessment indicates it is likely that unconditional planning permission would be granted for development which has already taken place, the correct approach is to suggest to the person responsible for the development that he should at once submit a retrospective planning application (together with the appropriate application fee).’

The site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as a result, policy C2 ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ of the IW Unitary Development Plan applies. This policy seeks to ensure that planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and ‘be for the benefit of the local rural economy and the people who live there’ or ‘ involves the low-key improvement of an area used for informal leisure and recreation’. Other relevant policies include D1 ‘Standards of Design’, C15 ‘Appropriate Agricultural Diversification’, C24 ‘Commercial riding establishments’, C25 ‘All-weather riding facilities’, T9 ‘Small-scale rural tourism development’. These policies provide the potential for agricultural diversification, particularly by using existing farm buildings.

AONB Officer - concerned over the potential for the tea rooms to expand beyond the existing number provided.

Southern Water – Drainage – There are no public sewers on the site at this location and Southern Water has no comments on the application. Water – There are no water mains owned by Southern Water near this site. It is presumed that they have their own private supply, which is not unknown for rural properties. The Environment Agency would regulate the abstraction of water from this source. I suggest you ask them about the adequacy of the supply to serve increased development. Alternatively a public supply could be provided at the expense of the developer.

Gatcombe Parish Council would wish the planning committee to carry out an inspection of the site prior to determining this application.

 Applicant is in breach of agricultural occupancy conditions and runs a number of other businesses from the premises; livery yard, tea garden and B & B.

 Conservatory larger than indicated on plans, and is ‘inappropriate for such a location and visually despoils the area’. Materials used for the conservatory are inappropriate. Conservatory is not used for domestic purposes, but purely as a tearoom and breakfast room for bed and breakfast guests.

 Sand school has been achieved by removing a large area of downland grazing leaving an unsightly expanse of bare chalk. Sand school has not been used for the storage of hay bales.

 Gatcombe not suitable location for commercial development. Tea rooms has been advertised in the tourist press attracting visitors in minibuses. Outside tables situated ‘near the road on a very sharp corner.’

 Proposals forming the application do not improve the agricultural prospects of the property.

 Gatcombe has a limited private water supply, from which a commercial use shouldn’t be allowed to draw water.

Four letters from local residents submitted with the application confirming that they have no objections to the proposals.

Planning permission was granted for a dwelling at Little Gatcombe Farm in 1988 and this was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition attached to the planning permission. The land behind the property rises steeply and there is a retaining bank around the side and rear of the building; the conservatory has been constructed on the southern elevation of the house within the levelled area adjacent to the retaining bank. The conservatory has been constructed from white Upvc in a lean-to style and is approximately 76 cubic metres in size, having been measured as part of an enforcement investigation. The conservatory is most visible when viewed looking westwards from Newbarn Lane, but is seen against the backdrop of the earth bund. The side and rear elevations are also partially screened by the earth bund surrounding the property. The conservatory comprises an acceptable addition to the living accommodation at the property and it is not considered to have an adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The conservatory is used as part of the tea room and a bed and breakfast enterprise. Three timber benches are positioned on an area of gravel adjacent to Newbarn Lane to provide outside seating for the tea room. In terms of the visual impact, the seating is positioned adjacent to the boundary hedge and is only visible from outside the site when immediately adjacent the property. UDP policies support diversification of agricultural businesses, particularly T9 ‘ small-scale rural tourism development’ which allows for development which is ancillary to an existing farm operations. The tea room operation is considered to be small scale and is ideally placed to serve walkers and cyclists using the adjacent footpaths and bridleways. Should planning consent be granted, a restrictive condition could be imposed to restrict the tea rooms from expanding beyond the existing level.

The sand school has been positioned to the north west of the house and immediately west of the barn containing the livery stables. Policy C25 relates to all weather riding facilities and states that these are acceptable within the AONB provided that they are well related to existing buildings, appropriately screened and would not result in a proliferation within the locality. There is a gate between the barn and the sand school allowing access to the lane. The sand school is positioned adjacent to the boundary hedge and is not visible from the lane. There are no public vantage points above the farm from which the sand school can be viewed. The sand school measures approximately 11 metres by 20 metres in length and is surrounded by low wooden fencing; lighting has not been provided. On this basis, it is considered that the sand school meets the criteria set out in Policy C25.

The livery use is within an existing barn, which has been constructed from concrete blocks and clad with profile steel sheeting. The barn is located adjacent to Newbarn Lane and behind a boundary hedge, allowing easy access to the adjacent bridleway. The submitted plans show that a maximum of four stables would be available for the dual use of stabling or lambing. Policy C24 relates to commercial riding establishments and such a use is acceptable provided it reuses an existing farm complex, it minimises any impact on adjoining residential occupiers, there is not unacceptable conflict between riders and vehicles and there is a direct access to the rights of way network. In terms of policy C25, the use meets its stated requirements and is considered to benefit the rural economy.

A number of letters of objection have been received raising a wide range of issues. Publicity for the application was carried out in the usual way with a press notice, individual neighbour notification letters and site notices, of which replacements were posted on two separate occasions. A separate enforcement investigation is being carried out to establish whether the applicant complies with the agricultural occupancy condition. The same exercise was carried out in the early part of 2000 and at that time it was considered that the condition was being complied with.

In respect of the bed and breakfast, tea rooms and livery businesses taking place at the property, these would normally be regarded as examples of agricultural diversification and while they can require planning permission, would normally be supported by UDP policies, particularly those relating to tourism (T9 ‘Small-scale Rural Tourism Development') and agricultural diversification (C15 ‘Appropriate Agricultural Diversification’). Conditions restricting the number of tables allowed on the premises and the number of stables has been suggested in order to address concerns over the increase in traffic movements and the potential commercialism of the proposals. Concern over the over use of the private water supply has been referred to the Environment Agency who normally regulate the level of abstraction from water supplies. Other concerns relating to the location within the AONB and the visual impact of the proposals have been addressed in the body of the report.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is considered that the conservatory and sand school are acceptable development within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, altogether the proposals constitute small scale agricultural diversification and would make a positive contribution to the rural economy. For this reason it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and complies with policy D1 ‘Standards of Design’, C2 ’Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’, C15 ‘Appropriate Agricultural Diversification’, C24 ‘Commercial riding establishments’, C25 ‘All-weather riding facilities’, T9 ‘Small-scale rural tourism development’ of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (subject to the views of the Highway Engineer and the Environment Agency)

Report requested by Chairman of the Development Control Committee as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Application site divided into two parts, firstly St Thomas Square and secondly St James Square, in the heart of Newport. Both squares are paved at pedestrian areas with St James Square containing public statuary and St Thomas Square the Newport War Memorial and of course St Thomas Church.

The Newport Tuesday market, previously held on Coppins Bridge car park, has been the subject of a number of consents for temporary use of the Sea Street car park as a market on one morning a week, the last of which expired on 31 January 2002. Coach parking in connection with the weekly market is permitted at the Quay in Newport, until 28 February 2003.

TCP/19429/M3214 - use of land at St James Square and St Thomas Square as public market place on specified days. Permission granted October 1987.

TCP/19429A/M8205 - wishing well for local charity purposes. Temporary consent until 30 June 1991, granted on 31 May 1990.

TCP/19429B/P1985/02 - continued use of land for "Farmers Market", each Friday between 09:00 and 15:00 hours and one Saturday each month between 09:00 and 15:00 hours. Application yet to be determined.

Consent is sought to continue the use of St James Square and St Thomas Square as a weekly market, every Tuesday throughout the year. Submitted plan shows stalls to be located in the small vehicle parking area at the north end of St James Square, outside the County Club on the east side of the square, alongside the flower beds on the western side of the square and alongside the kerb in the southern part of the square. In St Thomas Square, stores would be grouped around the church, on either side of the rear of the retail properties fronting High Street, alongside the bank on the western side of the square and adjacent the parking area, to the south of the War Memorial.

PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Development) seeks to protect the vitality and viability of existing town centres by maintaining a wide range of shopping opportunities, including the opportunities for linked trips.

Sites are within the Newport town centre defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and are within the heart of the Newport Conservation Area. UDP Policy R1 states that:

"Planning proposals that protect and maintain and/or enhance the retail function of the defined town centres as a whole will be acceptable in principle."

"Planning applications for markets, car boot sales and other temporary retail uses will be approved provided they:

b) have restrictions imposed on them to ensure that the proposal remains temporary and does not set a precedent for permanent retail use;

e) provides satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access, highway safety and parking."

Highways Engineer has no objection but comments that Newport Traffic Management (non pedestrianisation) Scheme includes a bus contra flow, which is currently being designed, running through St James Square. This is not expected to encroach on existing pedestrian areas. It will remove parking in the area and introduce two way traffic flows for buses.

Newport is an historic market town and it is probable that the town squares and wider streets, such as Quay Street, have been used traditionally for market purposes. Following the loss of the Coppins Bridge site, Sea Street car park has not been considered satisfactory as a market site and, on an experimental basis, the use of High Street as well as parts of St James Square and St Thomas Square has been tried. Again, use of High Street has caused some problems in terms of traffic flows both within that street and in others used for traffic diversion and therefore the current application seeks to restore the use of Newport's town squares to market purposes.

In my opinion, such use is entirely in accordance with UDP policies seeking to maintain the vitality and viability of the town centre. Furthermore, under Policy R12, I consider that the market will not prejudice permanent development proposals, would not set a precedent for permanent retail use, as the site is within the town centre, is near main traffic and public transport routes and, a view supported by the Highways Engineer, provides satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access, highway safety and parking.

On this latter point, emergency access can be maintained and the proposed bus contra flow in St James Square is not anticipated to encroach on pedestrian areas, now proposed for market use.

Previous applications for relocation of the market have been tied in with proposals for coach parking in Newport. Members will be aware that many visitors to the market arrive by coach and currently coaches can be parked on Newport Quay until February 2003. It may be than an application will be submitted to extend that time period, and Members will have to determine that, in due course, on its merits. In the meantime, I can see no reason why the current application for siting of the market should be held up, pending any decisions which might be taken on coach parking, which is clearly a separate issue.

The application seeks to maintain the weekly market, on its traditional day of a Tuesday, and subject to restrictions confirming that the market will be held on Tuesdays only each week, I can see no reason why planning permission should not be granted.

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 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 others, 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 freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

The proposal to retain a Tuesday market in Newport's town squares restores in part an historic function of the squares and also accords with national and UDP policies to encourage the vitality and viability of town centres. It accords with UDP policies regarding markets and is therefore recommended for approval.

Application raises a number of issues regarding enforcement, highway safety and effect on a listed building.

Number 23 is a residential property which fronts onto Fairlee Road some 60 metres from the traffic light junction. On the eastern side of the site lies open space, to the west lies Medina Way. The frontage of the property between the highway and the dwelling is completely open and has been laid to brick paviors. Some properties either side have low brick walls with gate piers on the road frontage.

TCP/20381A- Refusal of planning permission for proposed conversion of existing dwelling to form two self-contained flats. 03.01.1990.

Detached listed building. Proposal is for vehicular access directly onto Fairlee Road.

The site is within the development envelope for Newport. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D4 (External Building Works), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and B1(Alterations and Extensions to Listed Building) 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 access provides safe conditions for all road users. Policy D4 relates to planning applications involving external works and states they will be approved where they retain existing boundary walls or where new walls relate well to the character of the area and damage to landscape is minimised. Also Policy B1 states the scheme retains and repairs the original fabric and features, or replaces features that are missing and does not harm the fabric or stability of the building or adjoining buildings and structures.

Highways Engineer has inspected the site and recommends refusal on the grounds of a new access being created and an inadequate turning area on site.

The Highway Engineer recommends refusal on the grounds that the property has a relatively small front garden which although paved over to provide a hardstanding area, is incapable of accommodating a turning area to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in a forward gear at all time. Therefore, vehicles would have to either reverse into or out of the site creating a hazard on the highway close to a signal controlled junction on one of the busiest roads on the Island. Such development would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7.

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

Properties on either side have low brick walls with brick gate piers and it would appear that similar boundary treatment would have existed at this listed property. Therefore, any enforcement action should require the reinstatement of such a wall across the frontage allowing pedestrian access only to the property.

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 is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

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 and Policy B1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

That enforcement action be authorised to secure the closure of the existing frontage with a brick wall and gate piers of similar design, materials and specification as required by the Local Planning Authority, to be similar to the boundary treatment of adjoining properties, with six months to comply.

The application is a significant submission where there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

Site is roughly rectangular area of land heavily overgrown with trees and shrub situated on southern side of East Street approximately midway between its junctions with Dover Street and Monkton Street. Southern boundary of site adjoins nursing home which lies within ownership of applicant. Land level is significantly higher at road level and is retained by a 2 metre high stone wall which is in a state of disrepair.

Part of application site lies on or adjoins railway tunnel of train route running between Ryde pier head and St Johns.

Application seeks consent to level front of site and construct six town houses in two distinct blocks. Each town house comprise bedroom accommodation on the ground floor with lounge and kitchen at first floor level and master bedroom above.

Buildings would be located one metre behind edge of pavement and proposal does not provide any off-street parking provision.

Buildings would have benefit of timber decking to rear and submitted plans show such decking to lie outside or just on limit of railway tunnel with footprints of buildings lying outside required wayleave.

Submitted plans indicate that existing tree screen and shrubbery will be retained around western, southern and eastern boundaries of site with main tree and shrub cover within site itself removed in order to allow building construction.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Highway Engineer raises no comments as proposal involves no additional access or parking within its curtilage.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle subject to appropriate condition to ensure no oil or fuel spillage during construction works. They suggest further condition requiring water runoff to be passed through trapped gulleys.

Southern Water have commented that having looked at record of sewer incidents in area a number are recorded, however, many of them are blockages in private drainage. There is no flooding shown in immediate vicinity of proposed development. Sewers in area are indicated as being combined and it is suggested that surface water should not be directed into sewer if alternative disposal methods are practicable.

In respect of original scheme Railtrack formerly objected to proposed development on grounds that it would increase loading on tunnel which runs beneath site. Following revision agent has copied letter from Railtrack which advises that subject to agreement on safe methods of construction, surface water management and detailed arrangement on the location of proposed retaining walls and building foundation slabs, Railtrack confirm their approval in principle. They further advise that it is assumed that tunnel was constructed using a cut and cover technique and that material over and adjacent to tunnel is not original but constitutes made ground. They (Railtrack) will need to be satisfied that proposed excavation for base slab will not increase a passage for surface water to migrate towards tunnel as this would very quickly cause damage to tunnel structure and track bed. They have requested their consulting engineers to meet with applicant's engineer on site to agree outline methods of construction.

Council's Ecology Officer advises that site is steeply sloping north facing clay bank heavily overgrown with trees and shrubs. Rubbish has been tipped on site and some elms have been felled with cut timber and brash piled on ground. Whilst site does have wildlife value it is an area of wooded ground surrounded by well maintained gardens which, until recently, have been relatively undisturbed. It is likely to serve as a refuge for wildlife and breeding area for birds. Residents have claimed presence of red squirrels, however, this would be an unusual occurrence and land is not suitable to support squirrels, however, it is very likely that visiting squirrel would spend some time in trees here feeding on Corsican pine cones. Badgers have also been claimed on site, again it is likely that this would be sightings of a passing individual. There is no evidence of a sett on site, however, piles of brash on the bank mean that not all site was accessible at time of visit. Although unlikely, site should be checked again when material is removed.

In respect of original submission four letters received objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Revised scheme has been readvertised and previous correspondents re-notified and at time of preparing report no further comments had been received.

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of new residential development when viewed within context of conservation area and general street scene, impact on amenities of local residents, nature conservation issues and proximity of railway tunnel to development site together with highway matters.

Whilst site presents small overgrown well-treed site, site has been inspected by Council's Tree and Landscape Officer who advises that tree cover is predominantly elm sucker growth, with semi-mature trees presenting some evidence of Dutch Elm disease. Site is also colonised by sycamore which occupy disturbed and tipped areas of site. Lime on front corner of site is considered to be specimen of value with further sycamore, elms and ash to rear of site providing significant screening which should be retained.

In view of Ecology Officer's report, site is of no value in respect of protected species habitat and represents isolated wooded site of little wildlife value.

Provided important trees are retained on site there is no objection in principle to development of this site for residential purposes and whilst site itself is located within conservation area, such designation does not preclude development, indeed Members will be aware of requirements of Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require Local Planning Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of appearance of conservation areas.

Site is to some extent stand-alone, however, Members should note that relatively recent residential development has been approved further eastwards of application site. Design and detail of town houses (as revised) is considered appropriate for the location involving three storey town houses with part brick, part render elevations.

As previously mentioned, given relative isolated nature of application site, it is not considered that proposal will adversely impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers or residents in nursing home to south, particularly given land levels involved and limited number of window openings in rear elevation.

In providing no off street parking proposal complies with zonal parking policy adopted within Unitary Development Plan for Zone 2 locations.

In terms of potential physical impact on railway tunnel agreement has been reached in principle with Railtrack and obviously any construction works adjacent tunnel would have to be agreed/supervised by that organisation and their consulting engineers.

Development of this site for residential purposes within built-up area complies with policy contained within PPG3 which seeks generally to encourage appropriate development in town. design and scale of proposal is considered to be appropriate for site which lies within designated conservation area. I am of the opinion that development as proposed will be compatible with existing built environment and will not appear incongruous or out of character with existing development and will not have any adverse effect on character or amenities of designated conservation area or surrounding residential occupiers. Proposal is therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with relevant Unitary Development Plan policies.

In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 1 year from the date of the occupation of the buildings for its permitted use.

(a No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work);

(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) No placement or storage of material;

(b) No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals.

(d) No lighting of bonfires.

(e) No physical damage to bark or branches.

(f) No changes to natural ground drainage in the area.

(g) No changes in ground levels.

(h) No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers.

(i) Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged.

Bunding during construction works:

During construction, any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

Report requested by Local Member as he is unable to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure as applicant is known to him.

Application relates to roughly rectangular site located on western side of Church Hill approximately 125 metres south of its junction with Eden Road. Majority of site is set back from road with limited frontage to Church Hill providing vehicular access running parallel with boundary to adjacent property to north. Site is at lower level to road and falls in a westerly direction toward rear boundary.

TCP/5667P/S/25411 - outline for dwelling and garage refused in November 1999 on grounds that, by virtue of its position to the rear of the car park serving the adjacent nursing home, any occupants of the property would suffer a loss of privacy and amenity by vehicles using this area at unrestricted hours. In addition, it was considered that proposal would lead to loss of amenity to adjoining property to north by virtue of dominating effect and that development of site for residential purposes as proposed would result in an undesirable arrangement of dwellings, likely to prejudice the amenities and privacy of neighbouring residential units.

Subsequent appeal was dismissed in November 1991. In determining the appeal, the Inspector took account of information provided on illustrative plans which showed dwelling located immediately to rear of car park to adjacent nursing home with garage alongside boundary with adjacent property to north. Whilst noting the reasons for refusal of the application, and fact that car park to adjacent nursing home is within three metres of the proposal, he accepted that it would be possible to satisfactorily screen the vehicular activities from the dwelling. Notwithstanding this, he was of the view that the relationship of this car park to the adjacent nursing home is not very different to that of the proposals and that the comings and goings of vehicles was unlikely to be so great as to be a nuisance. With regard to the position of the proposal and its relationship with the adjoining properties, the Inspector expressed view that there was sufficient distance between it and the property to the north for there to be no adverse effect upon the amenities of the occupants either by overlooking, overshadowing or visual impact.

It would appear that the only area of concern expressed by the Inspector related to the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent nursing home and the adverse affect on future occupiers of the dwelling which he considered would suffer a loss of privacy by overlooking from windows within habitable rooms within the nursing home.

Full planning permission is sought for detached dwelling and garage with access off Church Hill. Proposed dwelling would be of chalet style design providing accommodation comprising living room, kitchen, bedroom, utility room and W.C. at ground floor level with one bedroom and dressing room/en-suite facilities at first floor level. Detached garage would be located immediately adjacent proposed dwelling and southern boundary of site.

Application site is located within development boundary as defined on Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

H4 - Unallocated Residential Developments to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Totland Parish Council consider that proposal is overdevelopment of area in view of the recent application for redevelopment of Culverdene (adjacent property) itself.

One letter received from local resident objecting to proposal on grounds that plot has already been overdeveloped with proposal for block of flats in place of Culverdene. They consider that land should be used as car parking area for the proposed flats on basis that parking to serve that development is inadequate with most families owning two cars, not to mention boats and trailers, and visitors' cars.

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

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site as proposed would have adverse effect on character of area and amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers in particular. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider whether comments of Inspector in respect of previous appeal have been addressed and, in particular, those relating to effect of adjoining property on future occupiers of the development.

Proposed dwelling and garage is shown on submitted plans to be located adjacent southern boundary, away from boundary with adjacent property to north and having regard to position and design of proposed dwelling, I do not consider that development would have over dominant effect on neighbouring properties. Furthermore, subject to appropriate treatment to window in northern elevation of property, I am satisfied that proposal will not result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent properties. In any event, I would conclude, by reason of the nature of the comments made by the Inspector dealing with the previous appeal, that these issues did not lead to the dismissal of the appeal. Furthermore, the Inspector made no reference to the lack of road frontage to the plot nor did he comment that development would result in an unacceptable arrangement of dwellings.

Inspector, in dealing with previous appeal considered that, having regard to proximity of the proposal to habitable rooms in Culverdene, the adjacent nursing home premises, this relationship would have an unacceptably overbearing and detrimental effect to the amenities enjoyed by its occupants and, in turn, occupants of the proposal would suffer a loss of privacy by overlooking from the nursing home. With regard to the issue of the impact of the development on the adjacent property, applicant has submitted plan indicating that dwelling would be dug in to slope, below level of adjacent site. Having regard to this change in level and the design of the dwelling, I do not consider the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property.

With regard to amenities of future occupants of the site, it should be noted that dwelling has been designed with principal windows looking in westerly direction and having regard to this fact and, again changes in level, I am satisfied that accommodation within building would not be subjected to unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy from the adjacent property. Revised plans have been submitted showing garage located adjacent and at right angles to southern boundary and would provide a degree of screening and privacy to the garden area of the proposed dwelling. Further screening could be provided with appropriate boundary treatment and landscaping. Furthermore, whilst the Authority is unable to predict the future of the adjacent premises, it is presently not in use as a nursing home and is the subject of a separate application for redevelopment. Consideration of that application will obviously take into account effect on the amenities of the area in general and neighbouring residential properties in particular.

Whilst noting the comments raised in third party representations, it should be noted that the application site is not in same ownership as the adjacent nursing home and the Local Planning Authority would not be in a position to insist that this site forms part of that scheme in order to provide parking as suggested by the local residents. The application in respect of the adjacent property will need to be considered on its merits and, in particular, whether the proposed scheme makes adequate provision for parking to serve the development.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of 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 and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Furthermore, I consider that scheme addresses comments made by the Inspector in dealing with the previous appeal and that proposal now represents acceptable form of development.

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

The application site consists of a one hectare field on the eastern side of Hulverstone Lane and approximately 1/3 mile from its junction with the B3399. The land is bounded by a dense boundary hedge adjacent to the lane and with post and rail fencing forming other boundaries. There are long views to the east towards Mottistone Down and south towards the coast. Access to site is via a metal gate from Hulverstone Lane.

The proposal consists of the retention of an existing open fronted wooden shed measuring 5.5 metres by 3.6 metres and which is partially complete. The second proposed building measures 4.5 metres by 3.1 metres and is to be constructed from corrugated iron sheeting, however, the applicant has agreed to amend the materials so that the walls are to be timber and the roof corrugated sheeting. Both buildings are to be placed adjacent to the boundary hedge. The applicant has confirmed that the land is to be used as a small holding on which it is proposed to keep goats and chickens for the applicant’s own use. The sheds are to house a tractor, tools and hay.

The application site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast and policies C1 ‘Protection of Landscape Character’ and C2 ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ and C4 ‘Heritage Coast’ and policy D1 ‘Standards of Design’ would apply.

Brighstone Parish Council are of the opinion that the proposal will not be unduly prominent and therefore have no objection to the scheme.

Letter refers to other buildings in the area including a stable block, caravan and barn.

The proposal will be well screened from Hulverstone Lane; the roof of the existing shed is at the same height as the top of the hedge. Both buildings are considered to be relatively small scale and sited to minimise the visual impact on the AONB and Heritage Coast. The applicant states in a covering letter that the land and buildings are to be used for agriculture and that walls will be constructed in timber, rather than corrugated sheeting. The proposal therefore accords with UDP policies regarding development in the countryside and, subject to the views of the AONB Officer, the AONB. If adverse impacts are identified, it is thought that these can be minimised by use of appropriate materials, and a condition to this effect is recommended.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies C1, C2, C4 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Report requested by chairman of the Development Control Committee as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

Application relates to a three storey Grade II listed building currently operating as retail office furniture at ground floor.

The site is located close to the junction where Clarence Road meets York Avenue in a mixed use area including A1, A2, A3 and residential uses in immediate vicinity.

TCP/17168/P - Alterations and change of use from office and store to form two flats, rear of 1 Clarence Road, East Cowes - Conditional approval - 23/4/99

LBC/17168/R - LBC for alterations and change of use from office and store to form two flats, rear of 1 Clarence Road, East Cowes - Conditional approval - 25/4/99

TCP/17168/S - Use of property as cafe/sandwich bar, 1 Clarence Road, East Cowes - Conditional approval - 22/7/02

LBC/17168/T - LBC for alterations in connection with use of property as cafe/sandwich bar, 1 Clarence Road, East Cowes - Conditional approval - 2/8/02

Application seeks consent to change existing retail A1 - current discount retail shop premises to A2 - premises to trade as professional secretarial service. The existing 43.75 square metres of floor space is to be utilised in the proposal with no changes to external elevations. Three staff will be employed as a result of the application which is an increase in one compared to the existing use. There is no available on site parking but ample parking within the area and it is expected to attract five to eight visitors a day to the office.

Letter submitted from applicant explaining proposal. Looking to purchase shop due to expansion of business currently operated from home. Reason for expansion being that client base includes customers in East Cowes and applicants consider they will be providing service to East Cowes and the Island bringing people into the town.

Trading hours are expected to be 9 am - 5 pm Monday to Friday and 9 am - 1 pm on Saturdays and will present professional appearance with window displays offering varying services. Applicants also considering selling general stationery and providing facilities for photocopying, faxing help with computers, computer training by an IT consultant and internet access but the predominant use of the premises would be A2.

The site is located within the development envelope and East Cowes town centre boundary but outside the retail only frontage. Policy R1 - existing town centres, R6 - areas outside retail only frontages, D1 - standards of design, B3 - change of use of listed buildings, are considered relevant.

In particular policy R6 states that planning proposals for retail A1, A2 and A3 uses within the defined town centre shopping areas but outside the retail only frontages will be acceptable in principle. Policy D1 ensures that the proposal does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. Policy B3 supports change of use of Listed Buildings provided there is no detrimental affect on the long term structure of the building.

The change of use does not result in any external alterations. Site is within town centre outside East Cowes retail only frontage area. The proposal is considered to be entirely acceptable in terms of policy R6 - areas outside the retail only frontage, policy D1 - standards of design in that the use is not considered to detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and policy B3 - change of use of listed buildings in that the proposal will not detrimentally effect the long term structure of the building and preserves existing features.

With regard concern relating to loss of retail, it should be noted that in policy terms there is no sustainable reason to withhold consent.

Human rights have been considered in proportionality to proposal and it is considered there are no implications in respect of this application.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I consider the proposal accords with policies D1, R1, R6 and B3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and recommend accordingly.

(a) TCP/21784B Unauthorised alterations to vehicular access and formation of hardstanding, at The Orchard, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Ventnor, Isle of Wight

This report was considered at 17 September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting at which time Members requested that the report be deferred to seek clarification on how the three properties of Orchard Close, Orchard Dene and The Orchard will gain access given that their existing shared access junction with Undercliff Drive is on the lip of the existing landslip area. To assist Members, the additions to the report have been highlighted in bold type.

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of unauthorised works to a vehicular access and formation of a hardstanding.

In March 2002, as a result of a complaint an Enforcement Officer visited The Orchard and met the owner. The Officer saw that several metres of stone wall had been removed and a curved section of stone wall rebuilt on one side of an access leading to a hardstanding which had been formed within the entrance. Brick paviours were being laid at the entrance leading into the area of hardstanding.

The stone wall is part of the boundary to The Orchard which is a Listed Building, so in addition to forming an unauthorised vehicular access and hardstanding damage was also caused to the boundary of the Listed Building.

The same Enforcement Officer had previously been to this site on 21 November 1994 as a result of an allegation that a gap in the stone wall at this point was being used as a vehicular access. At the time of the earlier investigation a photograph of the gap in the wall was taken but there was no evidence that this was being used as a vehicular access.

It appears from the large parking area which has been formed within the woodland and from a sign which has been erected, that this area is being used not only by the owner of The Orchard but also by the owner of Little Orchard, the adjacent property, as parking space for visitors who make use of the bed and breakfast facilities at his house.

A retrospective planning application to retain the access and hardstanding was submitted in April 2002 and refused at the request of the Highway Engineer under the Part I procedure in May 2002. A similar application was refused in September 1995.

The access is intended to serve The Orchard, which is one part of a substantial property divided into three lying south of Undercliff Drive. These units all share a single access which joins the main road just east of the section which has subsided. One of the concerns raised by the owner to justify the new access and parking area relates to the difficulties of using the shared access, particularly when he has visitors, and where they can park.

The proposed access is unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate visibility and is therefore contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The works also fail to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The Highway Engineer has confirmed that none of the proposed works to re-open the main road will improve the visibility situation.

Following deferment of this report at the 17 September 2002 Development Control Committee meeting, I have contacted the Coastal Defence Manager and the Highway Engineer and enquired whether either of those two sections have investigated the need to address this issue which is likely to develop over the next year or so.

Although the Coastal Manager has indicated that they are not directly involved in the highway matters in this area, the Highway Engineer has indicated that consultants were asked to consider the relocation of the driveway to Orchard Dean by its relocation some 10 metres north of its original position. I can report to Members that this new access has been formed and accordingly, the concern with regards to the future access arrangements to the 3 properties (Orchard Close, Orchard Dean and the Orchard) has been resolved.

1. To issue an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the alterations to the stone wall and replacement of the wall to its situation prior to the alterations. Remove the paviours from the crossover which has been created. Remove the material which forms a hardstanding within the parking area. Cease the use as a vehicular access and parking area. Time for compliance – two months from the time that the notice takes effect.

2. To take no further action in respect of this vehicular access and hardstanding.

In coming to this recommendation to seek enforcement action, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Rights of Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Union Rights. The impact of the unauthorised development on the area in general and on highway safety has been carefully considered. Whilst this action may interfere with the rights of the owner of The Orchard, it is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Planning permission to retain the new access and hardstanding was refused in May 2002. At the present time the difficulties experienced by the owner in using their original shared access are not considered to outweigh the clear policy objection. The relocation of the shared access has I believed addressed the particular point which formed the basis for Members deferment of the original proposal and on that basis, I believe that the existing unauthorised access can be assessed on its own merits.

In my opinion, an Enforcement Notice should be served to lay down a timescale within which the owner of the property should reverse the damage which has been caused.

To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the alterations to the stone wall and replacement of the wall to its situation prior to the alterations. Remove the paviours from the crossover which has been created. Remove the material which forms a hardstanding within the parking area. Cease the use as a vehicular access and parking area. Time for compliance – two months from the time that the notice takes effect.

(b) TCP/23182D Further report concerning a complaint regarding the construction of a jetty and the formation of a separate unit of living accommodation at Seahaven, Port La Salle, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight

Members may recall that on 17 September 2002 a report was placed before them in respect of the ongoing investigation of the abovementioned complaints. At that meeting, Members adopted a recommendation which was to note the actions to date and to await the return of a Planning Contravention Notice and site visit followed by a report to the Development Control Committee on any action deemed necessary. The purpose of this report is to put in front of Members the information obtained from the Planning Contravention Notice and from the site visit and to determine if any breach of planning control has taken place and if so, the Local Planning Authority’s response.

There are presently two investigations into alleged breaches of planning control at the above property. Firstly, that the jetty has not been built in accordance with the approved plan and secondly, that a self-contained unit had been formed within the property. Both complaints were instigated by the same complainant and have been run in parallel.

The jetty, subject of this complaint, was granted planning permission on 6 July 2001, there was only one third party objection, which was received from this particular complainant. Shalfleet Parish Council, English Nature, and the Isle of Wight AONB Project Officer were consulted and raised no objection, the proposal was considered suitable for its determination under the Council’s agreed delegation procedure. In this instance the Case Officer’s investigation along with the complainant’s objections were fully discussed with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee and it was clear that the proposal accorded with policy and the objections did not provide sufficient reason to justify the refusal of planning permission.

After planning permission had been granted a further letter was received from the complainant stating that the decision was not a democratic one. His complaint was fully answered by the West Team Leader setting out in great detail why planning permission had been granted.

In May 2002, work commenced on the construction of the jetty and the complainant immediately contacted the Development Control Section stating that the jetty was not in accordance with the approved plan but was angled towards his water frontage.

The owner of Seahaven wrote to the Enforcement Officer in June 2002 stating that the jetty was a reconstruction of the original dilapidated jetty which had existed for many years, he could not see that the small scale plan really indicated anything that could be altered. He stated that if the Enforcement Officer wished to pursue this matter he would address the letter to the contractor who undertook the work.

The Enforcement Officer subsequently spoke with the marine contractors who built the jetty and one of the directors assured him that the jetty had been built strictly on the line of the old jetty. He said that Humberts Solicitors, had given their seal of approval on behalf of Crown Estates. He added that the jetty was indeed angled slightly towards the west.

Regarding the alleged formation of a self-contained living unit, it was alleged by the complainant that the owner of Seahaven had converted part of his dwelling into a self-contained unit which he was letting out as a short term holiday lets through a letting agency. He said that he was concerned that this self-contained unit is immediately adjacent his wall and there was a possible fire hazard resulting from weekly holidaymakers and their children. The complainant subsequently provided more information regarding Seahaven to the effect that the previous occupiers consisted of the owner and his wife, his sister, and his wife’s mother and father, and as a result of this, the property was compartmentalised but with entry through the front door for all concerned. He said that when the present owner of Seahaven purchased the property some two years ago, he turned it back internally to become one family house and it was only this year that he had builders in to create a self-contained holiday apartment for letting to holidaymakers through a letting agency.

The Enforcement Officer discussed this matter with the Council’s Council Tax Department and it was confirmed that a separately assessed living unit has been in existence at this property since 13 May 1997. As a result of a number of difficulties in arranging to meet the owner of Seahaven to inspect the property, a Planning Contravention Notice was served dated 9 October 2002 seeking information on the detached unit and the jetty. This notice was returned on 6 November 2002. Part of this procedure is to make arrangements for a visit to the property and on Saturday 23 November 2002 the Enforcement Officer and Enforcement Team Leader visited Seahaven and met the owner by appointment. There is a separate living unit within Seahaven but one of the first things that became very clear was that there was a considerable difference in levels between the unit and the main part of Seahaven, which would make any internal access quite difficult. There were no signs within the building of any internal doorway being closed up.

The owner stated that when he purchased the property the separate living unit was already in existence, that there was no internal connection between the two, and that the only access was by way of a door in the conservatory at the rear of the property. The owner stated that following his acquisition of the property the self-contained living unit at the side was not being used and he therefore contacted the Council’s Council Tax Department and asked them to remove the separate assessment. He stated quite categorically that this unit was not taken into use as part of the main house and that although he had builders in to carry out internal work this year, the work consisted of laying wooden flooring throughout the unit and fitting modern kitchen units and appliances.

The Enforcement Officers inspected the self-contained living unit which is being used for holiday purposes, and found that it has been refurbished to a very high standard.

The Officers then walked down to the edge of the Solent with the owner and viewed the jetty which was subject of the other complaint. A photograph was taken from the path leading down to the jetty and it is apparent that the jetty is slightly offset towards the west to a greater degree than the property owner indicated within the Planning Convention Notice. However, this angle is not so acute that the edge of the jetty crosses a notional boundary line that would be formed by a continuation of the side property boundary if this were continued out across the water. The western edge of the jetty has railings which mean any visiting boats would have to tie up on the eastern side (away from the complainant’s property).

1. To note the information put forward with regards to the second unit of living accommodation, to accept that the separate living unit is immune from planning action and as a consequent, the Local Planning Authority do not intend to take any further action regarding this matter. Owner and complainant to be advised accordingly.

2. To note the reformation put forward with regards to the separate unit of living accommodation but to advise the owner that the Local Planning Authority does not find the current level of evidence to be convincing and advises that he make an application for a Certificate of Existing Lawful Use to resolve the matter.

3. To write to the complainant and the owner of Seahaven informing them that whilst the jetty has not been built strictly in accordance with the approved plans, from the observations taken by officers, the difference is not considered to have any significant adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and on that basis, the Local Planning Authority does not propose to take any further action in respect of this complaint.

4. To advise the owner of Seahaven that the jetty as constructed does not accord with the approved plans and that he is advised to submit a formal planning application to regularise this situation. Time period for submission 28 days.

In coming to this recommendation, not to take any enforcement action with regards to either issue, 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 of Human Rights. The separate unit based on the evidence available would appear to be immune because of the time it has been in place and the impact of the jetty as built on the surrounding area and adjoining properties has been carefully considered. It includes a recognition of the relevant UDP policies applicable to this area and the nature of the development concerned. On balance, I believe that the proposal to take no formal action at this stage is a proportionate response and does not undermine the public interest as exhibited through the planning policies.

From the information submitted which includes evidence from the Council Tax Department, it would seem that a separate living has been in existence since May 1997. I fully accept that there was a break in 2000 after acquired the property whilst it was being refurbished. However, as the new owner took no steps to incorporate the separate unit back into the main dwelling’s accommodation, I do not believe that there was an intention to permanently abandon the use. On that basis, with the unit having been in existence for more than four years, I consider that it is immune from enforcement action.

With regards to the jetty, as constructed it has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. The property owner has indicated on the plan attached to the Planning Contravention Notice that he believes there is a slight deviation from the approved plan but following the visit to the site I consider the deviation to be greater then he suggested. The owner has indicated that he is not willing to submit a further plan showing the facility as built. On balance, I do not believe that the Local Planning Authority would have reached a different decision if it had been asked to consider the jetty as it has been constructed. According, whilst I do not doubt that Members will be unhappy with regards to the failure of the property owner to submit a plan reflecting how the development as been carried out, I do not consider that enforcement action to address this point would serve any public interest.

2. To write to the complainant and the owner of Seahaven informing them that whilst the jetty has not been built strictly in accordance with the approved plans, from the observations taken by officers, the difference is not considered to have any significant adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and on that basis, the Local Planning Authority does not propose to take any further action in respect of this complaint.

(c) Use of land for storage of container trailer, caravans, vehicles and siting of mobile homes used as residential accommodation, at land rear of and adjoining Fighting Cocks Roadhouse, Hale Common, Arreton

To consider whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile homes, caravans and other vehicles from the parcel of land.

In May 2001 under delegated procedure planning permission for the siting of mobile homes at lands rear of and adjoining Fighting Cocks Roadhouse, Hale Common, Arreton was refused. The reason for refusal states, ‘ the site lies in a rural area well outside any defined development envelope and the proposal represents the introduction of a form of residential development which would conflict with the policy of the Local Planning Authority on the use of caravans which recognises the cumulative effect of their sporadic siting in the countryside in detrimental to the rural character of the area specified in policy H12 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan’.

The Applicant subsequently indicated his intention to Appeal the refusal of planning permission. By letter of the 18 March 2002 the Local Planning Authority wrote advising the Applicant that the time period for appealing the decision had now expired and that a report would be submitted to the Planning and Development Committee seeking authorization for the service of an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the mobile homes and other vehicles from the parcel of land. Subsequently, the Applicant met the Area Enforcement Officer at the Local Planning Authority Offices and stated that he was actively seeking alternative sites to relocate.

The Application does not own the property that he is occupies and the caravans are at this time his primary place of abode. As of the time of preparation of this Report there is currently two large static caravans, one small travelling caravan, a large container, a mobile ice cream kiosk and several vehicles on the land. It had been thought that the breach would be resolved as the occupant was actively searching for an alternative site to relocate to. However, after a period of eight months he has been unable to find an alternative site and has in fact intensified the use of the property with the result that a visual amenity concern is arising within the immediate environment. When site visited on 27 November in addition to the 2 mobile homes (one of which has an extension) there was a large container trailer, 2 touring caravans, a boat on a trailer, 2 mobile sales kiosks and 4 motor vehicles. Site is accessed from rear of the tarmac car park which serves the pub.

The report must consider not only the residential use of the site but the other assorted activities. The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply in the circumstance.

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the residential use, the removal of the caravans all other vehicles and structures from the land and the removal of the chalk access road and hardstanding and reinstatement of ground back to agriculture. Time period for compliance 12 months.

In coming to this recommendation to seek enforcement action consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right of 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 unauthorised development on the area in general has been carefully considered. Whilst this action may interfere with the rights of the occupant of the mobile home, it is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and public interest.

The material factors that give rise to the request for the authorization for the service of the Enforcement Notice derives principally from the rationale of the policy that such development should not be permitted outside development boundaries. This argument has already been rehearsed when the planning application was refused in May 2001.The structures are located to the rear of the Fighting Cocks Coach House in an area that is predominantly rural in character and there is no justification to indicate why an exception to the policy should be made. The siting of the caravans in their current location nor the use of the site for general storage purposes is not in keeping with the character of the area.

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the residential use, the removal of the caravans all other vehicles and structures from the land and the removal of the chalk access road and hardstanding and reinstatement of ground back to agriculture. Time period for compliance 12 months.