PAPER D1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

TCP/6962/BMr K Vickery against refusal for pair of semi-detached

                                                               houses, land rear of 17-22 Clifford Street, Newport.

 

           TCP/15627/A                              Mr and Mrs P Hewison against refusal for two storey

                                                               extension and replacement garage and car port at                                                         Bramley Cottage, Newport Road, Sandown.

 

TCP/24537Mr & Mrs K Mew against refusal for demolition of

buildings and construction of chalet bungalow with double integral garage and vehicular access, land between Southgrounds and Southside Cottage, Appleford Road, Chale Green.

 

           TCP/24409/A                              Mr L Purrington against refusal for bungalow and formation of vehicular access and hardstanding, land adjacent 11 Vereker Drive, East Cowes.

 

           TCP/24955                                 Mr and Mrs R Stead against refusal for alterations and two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation to include enlarged garage at Caerleon, Swains Lane, Bembridge.

 

           TCP/23620/B                              Mr and Mrs Dean against refusal of outline for dwelling, land adjacent 30 Chatsworth Avenue, Shanklin.

 

           TCP/16686/A                              Mr and Mrs K Apthomas against refusal of outline for a detached house and garage, land between La Casita and Abbey Oaks, Hamstead Road, Cranmore.

 

           TCP/3886/P                                Binstead Garage Limited against refusal for the demolition of garage workshops and stores and the erection of 9 houses in 2 terraces with parking and access off Binstead Hill, land adjoining and forming part of Binstead Auto Centre, Binstead.

 

           A/2287                                        Woodward Leisure Limited against refusal of advertisement consent for the retention of an illuminated projecting serpent sign at Club Temptation, 16 St. James Street, Newport. 

 


 

 

2         HEARING/INQUIRY DATES


           No new dates to report

 


 

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

           (a)       TCP/24463                     Mr and Mrs C Evans

                       TCP/24464                     Mr and Mrs B Palmer

                       TCP/24465                     Mr and Mrs B Cole

                       TCP/234554/A                Mr and Mrs M Grezegorczyk

                       TCP/24466                      Mr C Andreae against refusals for a second floor extension and 2 metre fence at 16-24 Harbour Strand, Bembridge.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal (all five applications)

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal (all five applications) (Part 1) - 14 December 2001

           

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed (all five appeals) - 7 November 2002


 

           Main issues of the case (for all five appeals) as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          Whether or not the proposed extension would detract seriously from the character and appearance of its surroundings.

 

           •          Whether or not the proposed extension would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

 

           •          Whether or not the proposed boundary fence would detract from the open character and appearance of the Harbour Strand frontage to Embankment Road.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          There is a variety of designs, styles and heights of the buildings in the vicinity.

 

           ∙          The addition of an extra storey to the terrace would not be over dominant or undesirable in these surroundings.

 

           ∙          The curved roof design is an attractive design solution to allow full head room while keeping the overall height to a reasonable minimum.

 

           •          No condition could be reasonably imposed to secure that all the extensions in the terrace are constructed together and on this basis each application must be considered in isolation and is not acceptable.

 

           •          Advice in Building Research Establishment Information Paper IP/92 and IP4/92 would strongly suggest that the roof extensions would not have a significant effect on the sun lighting and day lighting of the houses at 1-9 Harbour Strand.

 

           •          The separation of this terrace with the other houses would be sufficient to obviate unacceptable over looking and there would be no harm to the living conditions of nearby residents.

 

           •          The open plan frontage contributes substantially to the attractiveness and character of Harbour Strand and the Embankment Road street scene.

 

           •          The erection of a high close boarded at the back of a narrow footway would result in a closely confined atmosphere.

 

           •          The fence would detract seriously from the open character and appearance of the frontage to Embankment Road.

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

           (b)       TCP/11867/V                  Matthew Holdings against refusal for 4/5 storey block of 22 flats with associated parking, vehicular access, landscaping and 1.8 metre high boundary fencing.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Approval subject to legal agreement.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal following site visit - 8 February 2002

 

           Appeal Decisions:                    Allowed subject to legal agreement - 7 November 2002

 

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

 

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

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of the adjoining residential properties (Orchard Mews) with particular regard for any over bearing visual impact.

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on road safety with particular regard for the impact of generated traffic at the junction of Victoria Road and Fairlee Road.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          Whilst the articulated block would be prominent it would complete and compliment the existing group of recent buildings.

 

           •          The proposal would not appear oppressively large in comparison with any of the surrounding buildings.

 

           •          The site is a suitable location for encouraging housing development and makes efficient use of the land.

 

           •          The proposal is in line with PPG3 and the UDP policies.

 

           •          The scale, mass and proximity of the block of flats would not impinge on the outlook and setting of Orchard Mews and would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers.

 

           •          The current inadequacies in terms of carriageway width and lack of continuous footway along Victoria Road will be addressed at the expense of the appellants by way of a section 106.

 

           •          The development is well located in relation to the town centre, adjacent to excellent pedestrian and site list facilities and has ready access to regular bus services which all help to reduce overall volume of private car trips and need for car parking spaces.

 

           •          The proposal is unlikely to add significantly to traffic congestion and is acceptable in highway terms.

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

 

           (c)       TCP/24419/A                  Mr and Mrs N Mitchell against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for two semi-detached houses with parking and alterations to vehicular access at land between Trouville and Woodleigh, Lane End Road, Bembridge.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal (Part 1) - 12 April 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 6 November 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

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

 

           •          The effect of proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring and future residents with particular regard to amenity space, visual impact, privacy and overlooking.

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The proposal would demolish the existing garage and construct a pair of semi-detached houses which would be larger than the approved single dwelling.

 

           •          The building would occupy almost the full width of the site and fill the gap between the two existing houses.

 

           •          The development would create a closely spaced built up frontage along this part of the road which would be uncharacteristic in an area where the buildings are generally well separated.

 

           •          The plot size for both the new dwellings and the existing would be significantly smaller than those in the surrounding area and out of keeping.

 

           •          The proposal to create a large hardstanding would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

 

           •          With a substantial portion of the front gardens of the proposed two dwellings and the existing dwelling occupied by car parking and turning, the area left for amenity space would be very small.

 

           •          The garden space allocated to the existing dwelling and that allocated for the new dwellings would be cramped and provide a poor environment for the occupiers.

           •          The development would be built close to the boundaries and would have a significant visual impact on the outlook from the flank windows and rear gardens.

 

           •          It is likely there would be overshadowing and a reduction in sunlight to rear gardens of the dwellings on either side of the site.

 

           •          The visibility on site is extremely limited and adequate splays cannot be provided.

 

           •          The proposed intensification of use of the access would have a significant effect on highway safety in this narrow part of the road.

 

           •          The increased numbers of vehicle and pedestrian movements would have an adverse effect on highway safety.

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

 

           (d)       TCP/19322/A                  Christopher Matthews Homes Limited against refusal for a pair of semi-detached houses at 42 Green Street, Ryde.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal (Part 1) - 24 December 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 6 November 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

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

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to amenity space, visual impact, privacy and overlooking.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The proposed building would occupy the majority of the existing garden leaving very little space around it on all sides.

 

           •          The building would appear to fill the entire space at the rear of the existing house giving a cramped overdeveloped appearance.

 

           •          The development would be out of keeping with the nearby houses by reason of lack of amenity space and the reduction of the garden to the existing dwelling would also be out of keeping.

 

           •          The amenity space allocated to the proposed dwellings and that remaining with number 42 would be so small as to be inadequate for the recreation of residents.

 

           •          The proximity of the proposed building to the rear ground floor windows of numbers 42 and 41 would significantly affect the outlook from these dwellings.

 

           •          The proximity of the windows in the northern elevation of the new building to numbers 42 and 41 would permit mutual overlooking and loss of privacy.


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

 

           (e)                                               Mr D Campbell and Mr C Bailey in respect of Enforcement Notice relating to the change of use of agricultural land by the siting and storage of a caravan and vehicle and at OS Parcel 7600 Whiteoaks Lane, Porchfield.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Enforcement action to remove caravan and vehicle.


 

           Committee Decision:                Enforcement action to remove caravan and vehicle.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed in respect of the vehicle and notice varied to delete reference to the caravan.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          Whether the matters alleged in the notice have occurred as a matter of fact.

 

           •          Whether there has been a breach of planning control.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The caravan and the car are on the land as a matter of fact.

 

           •          The whole site is in agricultural use including the plot being cultivated by the appellant Mr Campbell.

 

           •          The caravan is being used for the storage of tools of a type needed for cultivation of the plot and is no more than a temporary structure capable of being used as a shelter for persons working on the site.

 

           •          The siting of this caravan does not constitute development and does not require planning permission and there is no breach of planning control in this regard.

 

           •          The abandoned car serves no agricultural purpose and is a breach of planning control.


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

 

           (f)        TCP/23951/A &               Mrs J Marshall against refusal of planning permission

                       E/23951/B                       relating to the retention of a dormer window, french windows, balcony and railings and Enforcement Notice requiring the dormer window, french windows, balcony and railings to be removed and replaced with the window as approved in September 2000.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal and Enforcement action to replace the dormer window.


 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal and Enforcement action - 18 February 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed in respect of the planning appeal but partially allowed in respect of the Enforcement Notice - 13 November 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area having regard to its location within the Seaview Conservation Area.

 

           •          The effect of the development on the level of amenity of the occupants of number 1 Church Street might reasonably expect to enjoy with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The approved scheme involved the provision of a modest dormer set well below the ridge height of the roof and a much larger dormer has been constructed with alterations to create a balcony.


 

           •          The materials and quality of workmanship are to a high standard but the design gives cause for concern.

 

           •          The bulk and height of the dormer construction is discordant and incongruous in the roof scape particularly as the property is a prominent feature in the street scene.

 

           •          The height of the fenestration is completely out of scale with other windows on the elevation and draws attention to its excessive size.

 

           •          The development harms the character and appearance of the appeal property and the conservation area.

 

           •          With sea views to be enjoyed, it is likely the balcony would be used as a vantage point and sitting out area in good weather and there is evidence from the neighbour that this has occurred.

 

           •          There would be a serious loss of privacy from overlooking of the neighbour’s rear windows and garden to a much greater degree than from the approved dormer.

 

           •          There is planning permission for a dwelling which if implemented would block views of the rear of number 1 Church Street but there is no certainty that the dwelling will be built and the appeal must be determined on the present circumstances.

 

           •          The compliance period of 2 months should be extended to 6 months having regard to the need for high quality work in this sensitive location.

 

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

 


           (g)       TCP/23144/J                   Mr and Mrs P Rodger against non-determination of application for conversion of living quarters and school rooms to 10 self-contained flats and alteration and extension to theatre at 22 Church Road and Margaret Pasmore Theatre, Priory Road, Shanklin. The planning consent had not been issued because agreement could not be reached on the final terms of a section 106-legal agreement to ensure the future of the theatre.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Without the benefit of a S106-refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Without the conclusion of a S106 - refusal - 6 August 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 13 November 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          Whether or not the benefits of retaining the theatre in use as a theatre are sufficient to outweigh the conversion of number 22 Church Road to residential use which would be contrary to the development plan and if so whether or not the unilateral agreement submitted by the appellants would be adequate to ensure the improvement of the theatre and its continued use.

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on highway safety with particular regard to vehicular access and parking.


           

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The continued use of the theatre would be of significant benefit to the local community, the wider Island community and tourism.

 

           •          The existing and approved tourism uses of the site, together with the theatre, comprise a robust concentration of tourist provision which fulfills the objectives of UDP policy T7.

 

           •          The proposed residential use of part of the site would not be so harmful that it would outweigh the benefits of retaining the theatre.

 

           •          The unilateral undertaking provided by the appellant would provide a satisfactory mechanism for ensuring the future of the theatre.

 

           •          The amount of traffic generated by 10 residential units could lead to confusion and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

 

           •          The site fails to provide a safe and convenient access for vehicles and pedestrians.

 

           •          Whilst satisfactory arrangements for parking and circulation within the site could be ensured by condition, this is outweighed by the failure of the proposal to provide a road access that would be safe for all road users and conflicts with UDP policy TR7.


           Application for costs by Isle of Wight Council against appellant:

 

           •          The appellants failed to submit a statement of case and a section 106 within the prescribed timetable.

 

           •          The appellants only produced a plan relating to access and parking two weeks before the hearing and this plan was insufficient in detail.

 

           •          The appellants failed to comply with the appeal procedures which resulted in the hearing being prolonged.

 

Appellants’ response:

 

           •          The appellants pursued their appeal on the basis that the Council had originally resolved to grant consent subject to a section 106.

 

           •          Their failure to produce a statement did not prejudice the Council’s position at the appeal as their position had been clear from the outset.

 

           •          Even if the legal agreement had been submitted earlier the issue would still have had to be discussed at the hearing.

 

           •          The Council had no cogent and argument as to why the access was adequate for the application when it related to six units but inadequate for the revised 10 units.


           Inspectors decision:

 

           •          The failure of the appellants to submit a statement was unreasonable but did not result in an unclear presentation of their case and did not introduce any new material.

 

           •          The late submission of the draft unilateral agreement clearly inconvenience the Council but did not result in any unnecessary expense.

 

           •          The Council’s reasons for objecting to 10 units when they did not object to six units was not clear to the appellants and discussions could have taken place between the two parties before the hearing and therefore both parties share the responsibility for the time taken at the hearing to discuss this issue.

 

           •          The application for costs against the appellants was refused as the appellants had not the caused the Council to incur or waste expense unnecessarily.


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

 

           (h)       E/20360/B                       Mrs Gedling against Enforcement Notice relating to the construction of an extended area of hardstanding, a bund and access road at OS parcel 0042 off Oakhill Road, Seaview.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Planning permission to be granted for the development.

 

           Committee Decision:                Enforcement action (after site inspection) to ensure removal of hardstanding, bund and access road - Feb 02

           Appeal Decision:                      Part allowed (hardstanding and track), part dismissed (bund) - 14 November 2002


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside.

 

           •          The effect of the development on Flamingo Park.

            

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The track is barely discernable through the mud but likely to facilitate vehicular access to the field shelter.

 

           •          The track has blended into its surroundings and causes no visual harm.

 

           •          The extended hardstanding is small in comparison with the lawful hardstanding and has no great visual impact.

 

           •          Subject to restrictions on its use, the extended hardstanding causes no harm.

 

           •          The bund has become grassed and is a relatively unobtrusive feature giving some screening of the stables/storage buildings.

 

           •          The bund is a substantial feature and because of its alignment and position will have the effect of funnelling surface water towards Flamingo Park.

 

           •          The bund partially encloses an area for the keeping of animals and run off surface water is likely to be polluted on occasions.

 

           •          The run off could cause serious problems for Flamingo Park which is an important tourist attraction.

 

           •          Conditions imposed to prevent vehicles being stored or parked on the extended hardstanding and no manure to be stored on the extended hardstanding.


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

 

           (i)        A/2216/A                         Mr J Smith against refusal of advertisement consent for two advance direction signs for the Bike Shed at junction of A3056 and East Lane, Merstone.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal (Part 1) - 2 August 2002

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Allowed - 18 November 2002


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The visual impact of the displays.



           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The signs are located in an elevated location in open countryside.

           •          The signs are modest in size sited close to the ground and are not garish in colour or design.

 

           •          The signs are not readily visible much beyond the immediate confines of the junction.

 

           •          The intrusive impact on the wider landscape is minimal.

 

           •          The signs relate to premises in a very remote location and there is a reasonable need for the signs for the remainder of the temporary period of consent for the Bike Shed shop.


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

 

           (j)        TCP/17048/E                  R F & P Osman against refusal for alterations and conversion of storage building to form dwelling, land adjacent Dexter Cottage, Brambles Farm, Brambles, Freshwater.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal - 18 February 2002

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 18 November 2002


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          Whether the proposed development accords with the development plan policies for residential development outside development boundaries of defined settlements and if not whether other material considerations would justify a decision contrary to that plan.

                        

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The appel relates to a farm barn located adjacent to a bungalow which has recently been constructed as a replacement for an older bungalow. The original bungalow has not been demolished and sits behind the new bungalow.

 

           •          The development is proposed as a replacement for the original dwelling.

 

           •          Whilst it is regrettable that a condition was not imposed requiring the original dwelling to be demolished, the continued existence of it does not justify yet another dwelling in the countryside contrary to local and national policies.

 

           •          The proposal involves the conversion of a rural building and the UDP policies play an important part in the Council’s objectives of ensuring that the reuse of buildings in the countryside aids the rural economy.

 

           •          The appellants have not made any attempt to secure a suitable employment, tourism or recreational use of the building.

 

           •          To allow the appeal would be seen as to add to the existing limited number of houses in the area and detract from its remote rural qualities.

           •          The harm would be all the more pronounced because of the overall proportions and design details which would cause the converted building to look like a purpose built bungalow.

 

           •          The original bungalow is relatively small and is located substantially to the rear of the new bungalow and from the viewpoint of the public footpath appears more like an outhouse or ancillary building than a dwelling in its own right.

 

           •          The loss of the original bungalow would not outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposed development and the retention of the original bungalow will not result in living conditions sufficiently poor as to justify the identified harm.

 

           •          The proposal does not accord with development plan policies and will detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

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

 

           (k)       TCP/15279/B                  Mr S Scott & Miss T Juby against refusal of outline for one dwelling, land adjacent to Kern View, The Shute, Newchurch.

 

           Officer Recommendation:        Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:                Refusal (Part 1) - 4 January 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Allowed - 19 November 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The likely effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

                        

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The site is closely contained by two storey residential development on either side and is well related to the nearby settlement in visual terms.

 

           •          The development as proposed would comprise acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage in accordance with UDP policy H9f.

 

           •          The proposal would create a satisfactory relationship in visual terms with the next door dwelling.

 

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

 


 

(l) TCP/24342                        Appeal by Heathwood Properties Ltd in respect of the failure of the Council to determine a planing application for a proposed lifestyle village to include residential retirement dwellings, ancillary hydrotheraphy, medical, leisure and social facilities on land at Whitecroft Hospital, Sandy Lane, Newport within the prescribed period of eight weeks.


Application for costs by the IWC against the appellants


Members will recall the above appeal was due to have been the subject of a three day Public Inquiry in July of this year but the appeal was withdrawn shortly before the Inquiry took place.


An application for an award of costs was submitted by the IWC against the appellants for the wasted and unnecessary expenditure which resulted in the late withdrawal of the appeal and in respect of the appellants unco-operative behaviour and failure to comply with the procedural requirements for the appeal.


The costs application is not contested and the appellants have accepted liability to pay the appeal costs reasonably incurred by the Council.


Secretary of State’s decision


The appellants did act unreasonably in withdrawing the appeal when they did without any explanation or apparent warning. The appellants do not dispute the allegation that they were unco-operative and acted unreasonably by failing to comply with the procedural requirements for the appeal.


The Secretary of State concluded the appellants’ unreasonable behaviour did result in the Council incurring and wasting expense in having to prepare to contest the appeal.


The Planning Inspectorate’s procedural letter of 25 February 2002 informed the principal parties that an Inquiry would be arranged for the appeal and set the timetable for the submission of statements. The appellants’ agent would have been put on notice by this letter of the risk of any award of costs if the appeal was withdrawn without good reason.


The Secretary of State concluded that the appellants, via their agent, had sufficient warning from the date of this letter of the risk of an award of costs. The Secretary of State takes the view that the Council would have begun to incur inquiry preparation costs from that date and therefore costs from 11 March 2002 (two weeks from the date of the letter which would have allowed for the appellants to fully consider the Inspectorate’s warning) are justified.


Costs Order


Heathwood Properties Limited are ordered to pay to the Isle of Wight Council their costs of the appeal proceedings, limited to those costs incurred from and including 11 March 2002.


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


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