PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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 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.

Background Papers

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.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

10 FEBRUARY 2004

TCP/07676/F P/02171/03

Land between Chameleon and Whitecliff Lodge, Hillway Road,

Bembridge, PO35

Renewal: 2 bungalows with vehicular access

Bembridge

Conditional Approval

TCP/09042/P P/02029/03

Bembridge Recreation Ground, Steyne Road,

Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO35 5UL

Proposed skate park

Bembridge

Conditional Approval

TCP/09980/Y P/01664/03

Godshill Organics, Newport Road,

Godshill, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 3LY

Conversion of shop and flat into single dwelling; proposed replacement shop, store & prep. room

Godshill

Conditional Approval

TCP/10169/F P/01680/03

Land rear of 33 and 35 Albany Road and fronting, Catherine Terrace,

Newport, PO30

Demolition of garage block; terrace of 4 houses

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/13319/R P/02247/02

Holliers Farm,

Branstone, Sandown, PO360LT

Demolition of buildings; conversion of buildings and construction of new buildings to form a "Victorian Theme Park", including a museum, shop, tearooms, toilets, exhibition and display areas and associated facilities; formation of vehicular access and parking (revised scheme) (readvertised application)

New

church

Refusal

TCP/16281/U P/01937/03

Oak Tree Farm, Carters Road,

Upton, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334BP

Variation and removal of conditions nos. 1 and 2 on TCP/16281S to allow continued siting of mobile home

Ryde

Refusal

TCP/18547/C P/01753/03

Land adjacent 25, Albany View,

Camp Hill, Newport, PO30

2 storey building to provide 2 maisonettes; formation of vehicular access & parking

Newport

Conditional Approval

TCP/20090/H P/01881/03

New dwelling 18, Princes Way,

Shanklin, PO37

Removal of condition no.4 on TCP/20090/F to allow the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding

Shanklin

Refusal

TCP/21445/G P/02422/03

North House, High Street, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO41 0PN

Demolition of jetty structure; replacement timber jetty

Yarmouth

Conditional Approval

TCP/23168/Z P/02389/03

St. Marys Hospital, Parkhurst Road,

Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305TG

Key worker accommodation in a complex 4/5 storey buildings; associated parking and amenity area and landscaping

Newport

Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 10 FEBRUARY 2004

(a)

TCP/11434/P

Copse End, Sandown, Isle of Wight

Alleged breach of planning control regarding protection of trees

Sandown

(b)

TCP/13520/N

St. Cross Business Park, South of Lower St. Cross Farm, Dodnor Lane, Newport

Construction of 12 detached houses, (AORM,)

Newport

(c)

TCP/20576/D

Westmill, Carisbrooke Road, Newport

Unauthorised change of use to builders store

Newport

TCP/07676/F P/02171/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 05/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Messrs Whitecliff Bay Holiday Park Ltd

Renewal: 2 bungalows with vehicular access

land between Chameleon and Whitecliff Lodge, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO35

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member Councillor Kendall has requested the application come before the Development Control Committee rather than being processed under the delegated procedure, as the site falls outside the development envelope for Bembridge as defined within the Unitary Development Plan and would lead to the consolidation of scattered and dispersed development that would be contrary to policies G2 and H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at meeting application will have taken 13 weeks - this is due to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site lies about 1 mile west of Bembridge village, on the northern side of Hillway Road forming part of a small field in front of camping area at Whitecliff Bay. In front of the site there is a telephone box, letter box and bus stop.

Site is flat and is flanked either side by bungalows and has natural growth forming the front boundary. The area is made up of a mix of residential properties and Whitecliff Bay holiday park.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/7676/A - 1987 planning permission was refused for two dwellings on the grounds of non-allocation, development contrary to Development Plan and intensification of residential development. Subsequent appeal allowed. Inspector in his report stated that the site "fulfils the criteria of infill development. Since there are small gaps and are flanked either side by residential development".

TCP/7676/B - April 1989 the Approval of Reserved Matters was granted and subsequently renewed in March 1993 - TCP/7676/C. The latter Approval of Reserved Matters expired in 1998.

TCP/7676/E - Full application was made in 1998 and approved in January 1999 for two bungalows with vehicular access and was approved subject to conditions. Consent was granted on the basis that the circumstances or policies had not changed.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the renewal of a full application for two bungalows with vehicular access. Dwellings are detailed on plan to be of a faced brick work construction under a tile roof.

Accommodation comprises of three bedrooms in each unit, living room, kitchen and bathroom. The style of the bungalows is of a simple design, and sited further north into the site in relation to the existing dwelling to the east.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing).

Policy G2 (Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes).

Policy G5 (Development outside defined settlements).

Policy D1 (Standards of design).

Policy H5 (Infill development).

Policy H9 (Residential development outside development boundaries).

The site is located outside of the designated Bembridge development envelope.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has recommended conditions should the application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Town Council have recommended renewal of application, however it was hoped that an improved design would have been submitted.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Member objects to application as site is outside the development envelope, leading to the consolidation of scattered and dispersed development. Site does not constitute a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage.

Local Members continues the criteria of PPG3 advises authorities to fully review all applications to renew permissions where they no longer comply with current policies.

It has also been brought to my attention that development has not occurred in the past as it is on the course of natural land drainage for the immediate area and is subject to flooding.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether the circumstances have changed since the previous application was approved. The application was determined in 1999 in accordance with the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan. The Unitary Development Plan has since been adopted and the criteria of the policies has not changed.

PPG3 states that "some existing planning permissions no longer meet the requirements of current policy guidance and should not be renewed".

In light of the above application is still considered to be in accordance with relevant policies; and I bring Members attention to the Inspectors comments in the 1987 appeal who viewed site as infill. On this basis development of site complies with Policy H9.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the 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.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am of the view that the circumstances have not changed since the previous approval to warrant a different decision.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Construction of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3	Submission of samples - S03

Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

(a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	Access pairing - J34

The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 2 parking spaces including garages has been provided for each of the proposed dwellings.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be brought into use until a separate turning spaces are provided for each of the proposed dwellings within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The existing hedgerow frontage shall be retained and where necessary augmented with appropriate species to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority at a height not exceeding 1 metre. The hedging shall be maintained at that height.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/09042/P P/02029/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South

Registration Date: 14/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593

Applicant: Bembridge Parish Council

Proposed skate park

Bembridge Recreation Ground, Steyne Road, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355UL

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This report is before the Development Control Committee at the request of the Team Leader due to the potential for disamenity the proposal may have.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is an “other” application. The processing of the application has taken 17 weeks and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period due to further consultation with the Environmental Health Section and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on recreation land accessed off Steyne Road. There is a car park at the entrance to the site and the skate park is to be located to the immediate west of the community centre in between the centre and all weather basketball/multi purpose court.

The surrounding site is in use as sports ground with open long range views. There is an existing sparse hedgerow between the community centre and proposed skate board site. The basketball court is surrounded by high perimeter fencing and has four flood-lights within the court. The boundary to the nearest residential properties to the north west is sparse, the nearest residential property boundary being approximately 20 metres to the north.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/9042/N - Construction of outdoor all weather basketball/multi purpose court with 2.43 metre perimeter fence and flood-lighting - Approved April 1997.

TCP/9042/R - Alterations, single storey extension to form store - Approved December 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is a full application for proposed skate park to be sited between the existing basketball court and Bembridge community centre. The ramp itself has overall measurements of 22 metres x maximum 4.8 metres wide with a height varying between 0.3 and 2.1 metres. Proposal will necessitate removal of existing sparse hedge adjacent community centre.

There will be a soft tarmac surface to the skate park area. The agent advises that there is no management/supervision as such of the site with no limitation on hours of access. Fencing has not been shown but will be required; no lighting is proposed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is allocated for educational purposes; Policy U7 - Provision of school playing fields, and protection from development, L2 - Formal recreation provision, L9 - Noisy sports are considered relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Section make no adverse comment in respect of application. Considers the application does not represent a significant increase in potential for disturbance to occur due to the facilities currently provided in this area.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council make no comment as they are the applicant.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters (one requesting further information on application): objections can be summarised as follows;

Proximity to residential properties and noise generation affecting quality of lives.

Disturbance early morning until well after dark.

Investment should be made in repairing existing community centre.

Affect enjoyment of homes.

Anti-social behaviour and crime.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer comments that there are a number of conflicting issues in application. Has concerns regarding existing damage to area, anti-social behaviour and items being dumped. Proposal may exasperate the problem or assist in reducing current problem as more people can act as visible security.

Proposal will assist in opening up western side of community hall by removing unkept hedging and ditch which will result in better surveillance.

Has no objection to application but "Ownership" of the area must be extended to stop the area deteriorating further.

EVALUATION

Given established recreational/sports use of site, main planning considerations relates to impact on amenities of locality in general and nearby residential properties in particular. The nearest residential properties are approximately 20 metres to the north and north west with limited boundary treatment on their rear boundaries.

Policy L9 permits use of land for noisy sports provided they do not adversely affect nearby residents. Additional landscaping could be provided to reduce the potential noise impact but this would affect the necessary visible security. A refusal on grounds of likely noise impact is considered unsustainable given Environmental Health comments.

In respect of lighting, no lighting is proposed as a result of this application. Flood lighting was approved at the same time as the all weather basketball/multi purpose court and has been installed to the west of application site. Conditions are attached to that consent preventing the floodlights being operated any time after 2200 hours and they are to be turned off when the court is not in use. There is also a condition relating to ensure that spill lighting from the illumination was kept to a satisfactory level and an additional condition to ensure the maximum average illumination level did not exceed 200 lux. I am not aware of any complaint to the Planning Section regarding this lighting.

Anti-social behaviour concerns and the potential for development to adversely impact on amenity of nearby residents carries significant weight in the determination of this application. In dealing with other similar applications the Local Planning Authority have granted temporary consent where there is insufficient evidence to enable the Authority to be sure of assessing the potential detrimental impact on existing nearby uses. This would have to give regard to capital expenditure necessary in carrying out the development.

It is also an option to impose a planning condition to prevent emissions of noise affecting nearby residential properties. Any such scheme would include physical controls, operational restrictions, administrative controls. However the Environmental Health Section have not recommended this and it is unlikely to comply with guidance contained in Circular 11/95.

Given the Environmental Health and Architectural Liaison Officer comments and the existing use of the site it is considered proposal presents acceptable use in this location and a refusal would be difficult to sustain at any appeal proceedings. If anti-social problems were to occur, ultimately it would be a police matter.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as referred to in this report it is considered proposal supports existing recreational community use and complies with policy in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No additional lighting of the proposed facility shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, details of the proposed perimeter fencing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The final surface finish of the skateboard park hereby approved shall be agreed prior to any works commencing on site. Such agreed details shall be fully implemented prior to the use hereby approved commencing.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/09980/Y P/01664/03 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 26/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Godshill Organics

Conversion of shop & flat into single dwelling; proposed replacement shop, store & prep. room

Godshill Organics, Newport Road, Godshill, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383LY

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If determined at the February Development Control Committee meeting, the application will have taken 24 weeks to process, the delay attributable to outstanding consultations and volumes of work.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Godshill Organics is located on the east side of the A3020 Newport to Godshill Road approximately 0.5 kilometre south of Bohemia Corner. The main holding has an area of approximately 4.5 hectares, although it is understood that there are two other parcels of land in Sandford and Merstone, each of 3.25 hectares.

The site operates as an organic small holding selling its production through a small farm shop located towards the northern boundary, a two storey building which has living accommodation on first floor.

The area is predominantly rural and most of the surrounding land is undeveloped and essentially agricultural in character. There is, however, a small group of residential properties fronting the A3020 just to the north of the present shop and dwelling intervening between the highway and the existing organic holding.

There are presently two vehicular accesses into the site in the site's frontage of 80 metres leading to an extensive car park finished in gravel.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications for poly tunnels, storage buildings in connection with the horticultural use of the land over several years.

In July 1995 a planning application seeking a variation of a restrictive condition was refused. The subsequent appeal was allowed by letter dated 21 October 1996.

The condition which was proposed to be varied was as follows:

"The shop hereby approved shall be used only for the sale of fresh fruit, vegetables, plants, flowers and seeds produced or purchased from wholesalers within the Isle of Wight, and for no other purposes, including any purpose within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1977."

The reason for the condition was:

The site is situated within an area where general retail uses are not normally permitted.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Essentially it is proposed to use the whole of the existing shop and flat as a single dwelling and to erect a new building as a replacement shop incorporating a store and preparation room.

Plans show the existing building to comprise shop area, office and store on ground floor with an external staircase to first floor where there is a kitchen, lounge, bedroom, bathroom and store. Whilst there is intended to be the infilling of an open area beneath the existing roof to form a porch and the infilling of some window and door openings, the remainder of the building is unchanged and is shown to comprise kitchen and living room, study and utility room on ground floor with a new internal staircase to first floor where four bedrooms and a bathroom are provided within the existing structure. The original planning permission for the dwelling includes a condition limiting the occupation to a person mainly or last employed in the locality in agriculture.

In addition a new building to house a replacement farm shop, store and preparation area is proposed. This L-shaped building is shown to have overall dimensions of 22 metres by 12.4 metres with a combined area of 200 square metres. It is proposed to be sited centrally in the width of the front part of the site but at the rear of the car parking area almost abutting its boundary with the growing area and in close proximity to existing poly tunnels and at a distance of approximately 10.5 metres from the front boundary of the site with the A3020. Plans show the buildings have a low pitched, ridged roof with an overall height of 4.4 metres, eaves height of about 3 metres. A steel framed building, the walls clad in timber boarding, the roof clad in profiled UPVC coated steel sheeting. Of the 200 square metres, 115 square metres will be display, 57 square metres storage and a preparation area of approximately 28 square metres.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG7 - The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development relates to this proposal.

PPG6 - Town Centres and Retail Developments is also applicable.

UDP Policy R1 seeks to protect and maintain the retail function of defined town centres.

Policy R2 supports new retail developments within defined town centre shopping areas and, outside defined shopping centres supports the establishment of small shops where they serve the local need only or are located within an existing village or ancillary to a farming operation. The site is outside any designated development envelope and is not under any specific allocation. The site is not in a Conservation Area or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers recommend refusal to the scheme as submitted on grounds of generation of traffic and inadequate access pointing out that the existing vehicular access is serving the site provides substandard levels of visibility and that bearing in mind its location on a comparatively straight stretch of highway, which forms one of the few opportunities locally for overtaking visibility splays are important, suggests that a single, central access should be provided with the existing accesses closed off permanently.

Environment Agency confirm no objection subject to certain safeguards.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council - no objection - consider a need for expansion.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of support from adjoining property owner stating that the design of the proposed building is appropriate, supporting organic farming and that the development will ensure the establishment's trading future and providing a greater range of choice for customers.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application comprises two essential elements. One is the conversion of the existing shop into additional living accommodation for use by the existing living unit and subject to the usual occupancy restriction, there are no serious implications in the proposal.

Secondly the replacement, in a new building of the "farm shop" which has implications regarding the total floor area of the new building, the establishment of a new, detached building in a comparatively prominent position and the range of goods which are proposed to be offered for sale.

In terms of the size of the retail outlet, the existing building has a ground floor of approximately 66 square metres which includes office and store. The proposed building has a floor area of 200 square metres, which includes storage and preparation area. This amounts to a proposed floor area of three times the size of that which already exists.

In accompanying information, the applicants detail the fact that the turnover has grown from £55,000 a year to £250,000 a year, an almost fourfold increase and point out that they are members of the Farmer Retail Shop Association who have advised them that the average floor space of a farm shop is currently 112 square metres. The shop area, not including the storage and preparation areas are shown as 115 square metres on the application plan. This would appear to be a substantial increase over the 42.5 square metres originally set aside for retail purposes within the existing building, more than three times that previous size.

In the appeal which was allowed in October 1996 the Inspector acknowledged the fact that in removing the condition (which he felt was unreasonable and unenforceable) that it would in fact permit the use of the shop for any type of retailing within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. He also agreed with the Council that this would conflict with the relevant policy in the rural area's local plan which broadly aimed to prevent the spread of retail development in the countryside but felt that the harm of the type then envisaged by the Council from an unfettered general retail use would be less likely to occur because of the specific characteristics of the operation. This was taken as being a specific reference to the size of the shop and he continued by indicating that the small floor space of the shop and its location on an agricultural holding would tend to reduce the danger of general retail business commencing which ought more properly to be located within a town or village centre and that any future proposals to extend the shop or to widen the sales elsewhere on the holding could be dealt with by the Council on their merits.

This application does seek to increase the floor space for retail purposes substantially but it is clear that there is an intention to continue the activities as before by retailing goods which are of organic origin rather than provide a purely retail function. The applicants claim that the proposed floor area of the farm shop is consistent with the national average of such establishments and therefore, that being the case, the difficulty in accepting such a proposal is the ability to frame appropriate conditions to control the sale of goods so that the retail outlet does not become one of purely retail use but, at the same time, to accommodate the range of goods which the proprietors wish to offer for sale.

Due to the fairly wide variety of goods and the fact that they are not limited to merely the produce of this holding, in order to avoid the possibility of an eventual change of use to a purely retail unit unconnected with the sale of produce from the holding and the sale of other goods of organic origin. Accordingly, if a consent is granted for the new building incorporating this additional floor space, I consider the use should be limited to the sale of organically accredited goods and that the shop should only operate as a shop in connection with the operation of the land as an organic horticultural unit.

If the principle of the increased floor space is acceptable, the position of the building and its visual impact must next be considered. Sited at the rear of the car park, abutting the screening between the car park and the poly tunnels, the building will be visible from any points along the open frontage. However, its comparatively low profile will keep the visual impact to the minimum whilst maintaining access through the site to the activities at the rear. Consequently I do not consider that the building as proposed, in visual terms will have an adverse impact.

Turning to the range of goods proposed to be sold, the supporting information indicates that items other than organic fruit and vegetables are proposed to be offered for sale such as unbleached, recycled paper products, non-chemical, organic and environmentally friendly toiletries, cleaning products, essential oils and certified organic cotton/hemp etc. clothing. The organic fruit and vegetables grown on the site are proposed to be offered for sale but it is also intended to purchase other organic fruit and vegetables from other Island organic growers (such as Wight Salads for organic tomatoes) prior to theirs being ready for harvest and varieties which are not grown on site. In addition applicants state that in the main English harvesting season their sales of fresh seasonal produce are about 90% of own grown vegetables but they do have to buy in additional to supplement the range of fresh produce anyone would expect to find in the local greengrocers such as fruit, avocados etc which have to be imported no matter what time of year. Other goods proposed are dried goods, dairy products, meat, wine and beer and, in the main, are not available on the Island.

As previously mentioned the range of proposed goods are kept in addition to what would normally be found in any other farm shop but all are derived via organic sources. There is no doubt that, as a shop selling wine, beer, clothing and paper products etc this type of retail use would not normally be granted in a location such as this but, at the same time, it is not felt to be unreasonable that organically derived stock could be offered for sale in addition to organically produced fruit and vegetables. Similarly a shop selling any goods such as those proposed would not normally be approved unless it is directly connected with the horticultural use of this land and therefore it is considered entirely reasonable that if planning permission is granted for this development the outlet should only be operated in connection with the organic horticultural unit and should offer for sale only those items which are organically derived.

Turning to the matter of access, the Highway Engineer points out that the existing access does not meet the necessary visibility requirements and that the increased floor space of the building will inevitably lead to additional traffic. In recommending refusal to the originally submitted scheme he feels that the relocation of a single access, strategically placed to ensure maximum visibility may be satisfactory. Revised plans have now been received indicating the closure of the northern access and the relaying out of the remaining access to produce optimal visibility splays in both directions.

In summary I consider the new farm shop with increased floor area to be satisfactory provided the retailing comprises only organically derived goods and in connection with the existing organic horticultural unit. The reuse of the ground floor of the existing building, namely the existing farm shop for increased residential accommodation is also satisfactory subject to its occupation in connection with the agricultural use of the land and the whole development subject to the closure of the northern access and the establishment of a satisfactory, single access in the site's frontage. The closure of the northern access will also mean that the existing dwelling will be accessed via the central improved access thus tying the two issues closer together.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is felt that the expansion of the retailing activity on the site is consistent with Planning Policy Guidance, Policy R2, countryside preservation policies and general planning policies as contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes including mortar colour to be used in the construction and alteration of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3	Agricultural worker's condition - F01

The proposed replacement shop, store and preparation room hereby approved shall be used only for the sale of organically accredited goods including fruit, vegetables, meat, paper products, non-chemical, organic and environmentally friendly toiletries, cleaning products, essential oils and certified organic cotton/hemp clothing and the shop shall not be used otherwise as any other use within Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: To ensure the land is not used for general retail or garden centre sales and to comply with Policy R2 (New Retail Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The replacement shop, store and preparation area hereby approved shall operate only during that time the existing holding known currently as Godshill Organics and delineated in red on the plan hereby approved operates as a organic horticultural holding and shall not, at any time operate as an independent business.

Reason: The land is situated within an area where, under IW Unitary Development Plan Policy R2 (New Retail Development), general retail uses are not normally permitted.

Visibility splays of x = 2.4 m and y = 160 m dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter,

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/10169/F P/01680/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 27/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr R H Chapman

Demolition of garage block; terrace of 4 houses

land rear of 33 and 35 Albany Road and fronting, Catherine Terrace, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Councillor Price, shortly after application was publicised. He is concerned with the foul and surface water drainage implications of this development. He does not wish the proposed development to proceed until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water, including capacity calculations, has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application , the processing of which has taken twenty four weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications because of outstanding consultations and workload of Case Officer.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is located on the corner of Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane, approximately 20 metres north east of its junction with Albany Road. It currently comprises of a concrete apron accessed off Catherine Terrace with a block of seven garages immediately behind. Site is roughly rectangular in shape measuring 21 metres wide and 13 metres deep. The immediate area is characterised by tight-knit residential development comprising mainly of terraces and semi-detached houses.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/10169E - Outline for bungalow and garage refused January 1990 on grounds that the proposal would result in over development, an undesirable arrangement of dwellings, have insufficient amenity space as well as leading to the loss of off-street parking facilities.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to demolish the garage block and to construct a terrace of four two bedroom houses. Three of the four houses would be set back approximately 1 metre from edge of road in Catherine Terrace, while the fourth dwelling to be situated on the corner with Banner Lane would be set back by almost 2 metres. Each dwelling would have a limited rear garden measuring approximately 3.5 metres in length. Site slopes away towards the north eastern (side) boundary and eaves/ridge level is shown as being stepped to reflect this gradient.

Elevations show that the development would be well articulated with materials comprising red bricks with buff brick features under a grey tiled roof.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities while also stressing the need for good design in new housing development in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people will choose to live. Furthermore, it states that car parking standards for housing have become increasingly demanding and have been applied too rigidly, often as minimum standards. Developers should not be required to provide more car parking than they or potential occupiers might want, nor to provide off-street parking when there is no need, particularly in urban areas where public transport is available or where there is a demand for car free housing. Parking policies should be framed with good design in mind, recognising that car ownership varies with income, age, household type, and the type of housing and its chosen location.

Site is situated within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 - All developments will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

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

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

H5 - Infill Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey which identifies among other needs a demand for smaller two and three bedroom homes.

The site is located within parking zone 2 of the UDP where parking provision 0 - 50% of the non operational requirement applies.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval. However, it is noted that the loss of the garages and associated parking spaces could create a parking problem in an area where there is no parking provision. The Highway Engineer is aware of a number of applications within this area, and although minor when taken individually, are perhaps unacceptable when considered on a more holistic basis.

Southern Water confirm that the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require their formal approval. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of this site. It would be preferred if no surface water were discharged to the public foul/combined sewer as this could increase the risk of flooding to downstream properties. There are no sewer incidents recorded on the public sewer in the vicinity of this site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of 13 individual letters and a 50 signature petition raising objections which can be summarised as follows:

1. Loss of much valued garages coupled with the parking needs of the proposed dwellings would exacerbate on-street parking problems where there is already a shortage.

2. The road would be narrowed to a point where it would be dangerous for pedestrians, particularly children from the nearby primary school, as there is no pavement.

3. Creation of a blind spot on the corner of Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane.

4. Circumstances have not changed since 1990 other than perhaps an increase in vehicle ownership.

5. Infrastructure is unable to cope with the demands of the proposed development.

6. Unsympathetic design.

7. Loss of privacy.

8. General disturbance associated with high density residential development.

9. Loss of light and overshadowing.

10. Overdevelopment.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Newport and, for the purposes of PPG3, is considered to be a brownfield site. I therefore consider the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes to be acceptable in principle. This is a full application and has generated a considerable amount of local opposition and raises a number of issues. Main issues to be considered relate to density, impact on neighbouring properties and character of the area, parking and drainage.

In terms of density, this is a brownfield site situated in a dense and tight-knit residential area within easy walking distance of bus routes and Newport town centre. The proposal before Members does offer a high density but, in my opinion, not excessively so when considering the character of the surrounding area. This is seen as an opportunity of making efficient use of this brownfield site while also providing the type of accommodation to meet a demand identified in the Housing Needs Survey. The proposed layout is relatively simple but very much accords with the prevailing pattern of development where terraces of houses with limited front gardens face onto the highway.

Members will note that consent was refused on this very same site for a single dwelling in 1990 on grounds of overdevelopment. Objectors take the view that circumstances have not changed since that time to justify approving an application for four houses. However, there has been a significant change in Government policy as far as density is concerned with PPG3 encouraging more efficient use of land and hence greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres or nodes along good quality public transport corridors. This is also echoed in Policy H6 of the UDP. I am therefore firmly of the opinion that there has been a significant shift in policy to justify accepting the principle of four dwellings on this site.

The proposed development is shown to be well articulated taking account of the fall of the site while also creating interesting elevational treatment. It has also been partially staggered to help turn the corner with Catherine Terrace and Banner Lane. Each dwelling would have a small front garden offering a natural transition between the highway and the front wall of the proposed development. Whilst not necessarily replicating established houses in the area, I am of the view that the proposed development would sit comfortably on this site and not compromise the visual amenities of the area.

The proposed houses are shown to have small rear gardens with first floor rear facing windows that may have the potential of looking into neighbouring gardens. However, this is a tight-knit residential area where a certain degree of overlooking already takes place. Bearing this factor in mind together with the fact that the windows in question would serve bedrooms and bathrooms, I am of the opinion that the privacy of neighbouring properties would not be significantly compromised by this development. Similarly, having regard to the established pattern of development, change in ground levels and the position of the proposed houses relative to the path of the sun, I am of the view that loss of light to adjoining properties would not be significant.

Local residents have expressed their deepest concerns in respect of highway safety, the loss of seven garages that are all occupied for parking and the fact that the proposed development would not be provided with off-street parking. It is claimed that approval of this application could entail many additional vehicles attempting to park on nearby streets where parking is already congested. The Highway Engineer has recommended approval and is therefore satisfied that the proposal would not compromise highway safety. He does, however, express concern over the loss of off-street parking but does not necessarily regard this as a justifiable reason for refusal when considering both national and local policies in respect of parking provision. The site is within zone 2 of the parking guidelines and is situated in close proximity to bus routes and Newport town centre. I am therefore of the view that approval of this development with no parking provision would accord with the objective of securing sustainable residential environments, and in particular national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car. I sympathise with those residents who currently use the garages to be demolished, but feel that a reason for refusal based on loss of parking could not be substantiated given current policy and the fact that refusing this application would not guarantee availability of these garages for residents in the long term.

In terms of drainage, the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. Southern Water confirm that there are no reported incidents on the line of the public sewer in the vicinity of the application site, therefore suggesting that capacity does exist for additional foul sewage. However, I would suggest a condition requiring submission of a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, to ensure that a satisfactory point of connection to the system can be made. I would also suggest that the condition encompasses surface water disposal, although it should be noted that water run off may actually reduce as a result of this development as part of this site, mainly the enclosed rear gardens, would become permeable. Bearing in mind the requirements of the suggested condition, I see no reason to further delay the determination of this application on grounds of drainage.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposal makes efficient use of this brownfield site and accords with national and local policies which seek to reduce reliance on the private car without impacting significantly on neighbouring properties or the character of the area in general. I am satisfied concerns relating to drainage can be adequately dealt with through a condition. I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water disposal. Any such agreed foul water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

All material excavated as a result of general groundworks including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site within an agreed timetable.

Reason: In the interests of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Surface water drainage from the development hereby approved shall be disposed of to the existing highway storm water drainage system, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall not be disposed of to soakaways or by any other method without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/13319/R P/02247/02 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 03/01/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Jayland Ltd

Holliers Farm, Branstone, Sandown, PO360LT

This application was first considered by the Planning Committee on 18 March 2003 when it was resolved to defer determination pending a site inspection which duly took place on 28 March 2003.

At that meeting it was resolved to defer determination again and the Committee instructed me to negotiate on the scheme regarding three areas:-

a) The redevelopment of the buildings on site which were felt incapable of conversion, their design being consistent with Victorian architecture, materials and styles;

b) Further details regarding the proposed highway improvements to ensure satisfactory ingress and egress of traffic and;

c) The carrying out of an acoustic study and report to indicate the levels and impacts of noise generated from the site on adjoining properties.

Revised plans have been submitted and readvertised and further details regarding the road improvements have been submitted after exhaustive consultation between the applicants' appointed highway engineers and the Council's Highway Engineers.

It is understood that an acoustic engineer's investigation and report have been prepared and have been sent to the Environmental Health Officer for consultation. The findings and the Environmental Health Officer's observations will be reported.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a major application and the reason for the delay in processing is the lack of Highway Engineer's observations and heavy case load carried by Officer.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to the former Holliers Farm, the premises formerly owned and run by the Isle of Wight College as an agricultural educational establishment. It encompasses a large tract of land comprising 33.5 hectares of land with a substantial frontage to the A3054 from a point opposite Branstone Farm in the north westerly direction almost to Jubilee Nurseries, a distance of about 340 metres except for an access to a residential property situated close to the main complex of buildings. The site reaches, at its eastern most extent, almost to Princelett Shute and almost to Bathingbourne Farm at its western extent and approximately 700 metres in a southerly direction.

The vast majority of the land is open, relatively flat and undeveloped, field boundaries being marked by hedgerows but in the southwestern extent of the site there are ponds at a lower level.

All of the buildings are situated in a central complex close to the A3054 and comprise a mix of steel framed agricultural type buildings clad in mostly timber and corrugated sheet steel and, in addition, there is a two storey brick work building close to the front of the site and, immediately to the east, a temporary portacabin style building single storey with a flat roof. The southern most buildings are timber framed and clad. There is also a polytunnel towards the western end of the complex.

The southwestern side of the A3045 is open agricultural land and with the exception of the Holliers Farm buildings there are 3 dwellings in close proximity on this side of the road. These are located immediately adjoining the northwestern boundary, a property located to the east of the complex with a short access track off the A3045 and, further to the southeast, another dwelling again accessed off the main road by a narrow track, both of these properties are completely surrounded by the land comprised in Holliers Farm. There are also dwellings on the northern side of the road and further to the east adjacent to Branstone Farm.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications between 1974 and 2001 relating to developments at Holliers Farm to be used in connection with the former educational use.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks to change the use of some of the buildings and land to a Victorian themed park, a development which will now include the replacement of former agricultural steel framed and clad buildings with ones of differing appearance.

It is intended to close off the existing vehicular access which is presently situated immediately in front of the existing buildings and open a new access in a position approximately 18 metres to the northwest linking with a car park and coach parking area sufficient for approximately 8 coaches and 57 cars.

Building A, essentially standing on that of the large corrugated sheet steel clad and steel framed building closest to the highway is shown as an L-shaped building to contain a reception area, cinema, lecture room and exhibition. Revised plans show this building to be rebuilt with the appearance of a traditional tithe type barn constructed in red brick work under a natural slate roof with some parts of the elevation clad in vertical timber boarding and incorporating a traditional "cart" entrance on the north east elevation (towards the road) housing two large timber doors and four small personnel doors. The building is shown to have cropped gables and incorporates a brick plinth approximately 0.8m above ground level.

Building B is the existing classrooms building, constructed comparatively recently in brick work and is shown to become a museum. Externally it is proposed to clad the exterior of the building in vertical timber cladding with a painted brick work plinth to a height of approximately 0.8m above ground level. It is not proposed to reclad the roof which is in corrugated asbestos cement sheeting.

Building C is located towards the eastern elevation, behind building B and forming the eastern side of a courtyard. This is proposed to contain craft workshops and toilets. This is a rebuilt structure, constructed in a similar style, a cropped gabled roof and timber clad walls providing ladies and gents toilets and three craft units.

Building D is shown to be the entrance of this and shop, a new building in decorative brick work under a natural slate roof with some timber cladding to the gable end. It will contain ticket office and souvenir shop and forms the southern part of the courtyard.

Building E, located further to the south west is proposed to provide tea rooms. This building is shown to be finished in weather board cladding under a natural slate hipped roof, overall dimensions of 19 metres by 10 metres.

Additional information supplied regarding the details of the operation show that it is intended to operate between 0900 hours to 1800 hours in high season between Easter and October and seven days a week, and otherwise 1000 to 1600 hours, five days a week for the remainder of the year. The numbers of employees at the venue will be twelve, full time.

At this stage only informal activities are anticipated outside of the buildings and courtyard area where patrons will take informal walks through a Victorian garden and longer distance walks over the site; it is anticipated that there will be pony trap rides around the site and that other activities may take place within the courtyard, for example a juggler, magician and street theatre.

The coach park will hold a maximum of 8 coaches but it is anticipated that there will be approximately 4 or 5 there at any one time with varying levels of car parking up to the maximum of 57.

At this stage it is estimated that the maximum number of patrons per day could be about 800 and it is hoped that an open top bus may be used to bring patrons from Sandown to the site and return them after their visit. The shop is anticipated to sell souvenirs, gifts, craft goods and other tourist type goods and the cafe is likely to sell cold foods such a sandwiches, cakes but to serve teas, coffees and other soft drinks. In addition, once a day a Victorian lunch will be served (such as rabbit stew). The activities are said to be special effects and demonstrations within the buildings which will not generate any significant noise. The inside of the buildings will be lined with sound absorbent material. A letter of explanation is appended at the end of this report.

Letter from applicant's solicitor (which was appended to the report and included on the agenda on 18 March together with the Development Control Manager's response).

Copy of a letter from Southern Tourist Board supporting the project and the way in which the project fits with other agencies including DEFRA. Essentially this letter supports the principle rather than the detail but points out the location is on a key holiday route on the Island.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Members will appreciate that Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clearly establishes that the policy document, in this case the Isle of Wight UDP is the main factor against which all proposals should first be considered and that, unless there are material reasons for doing otherwise, applications should be determined in accordance with policy.

Strategic policies, contained within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan include:

S1 - new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

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 the defined development envelopes of the main Island towns of Cowes/East Cowes, Newport, Ryde and Sandown/Shanklin.

S4 - the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S5 - proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the part 2 policies), will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

General and specific policies include:

Policy G1 expects the development to be located within settlements and that land outside the boundaries is considered countryside.

Policy G4 sets out the general locational criteria for development supporting new development provided it harmonises with its surroundings, creates an interesting and attractive environment with proper regard to access traffic including access by foot, cycle and public transport; maintains and enhances the interests of nature conservation and environmental protection; is sympathetic to the character and materials of its surroundings.

Policy G5 relates to development outside defined settlements, stating that exceptions may be permitted if a rural location is required and the development is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped and should be development connected with agriculture, forestry or related ancillary activities; that it is recreation or sports activities appropriate to the countryside; an appropriate rural tourism development and other exceptions cited.

Policy D1 relates to standards of design, expecting visual integrity of the site, sympathy in terms of scale and materials, siting and layout; that development should be compatible with surrounding buildings and uses in terms of height, mass and density, does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Policy D3 relates directly to landscaping which should reflect the existing features, character and locality with adequate landscaping with the need to continue maintenance.

Policy E1 sets out the Council's desire to promote and encourage employment uses in appropriate locations on allocated land within or adjacent to existing settlements so as to reduce the need to travel to work by car.

Policy E8 allows for some employment related development on land outside development boundaries where it is of benefit to the rural economy where the built application is for the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural building and where the development is associated with an existing farm complex and employment operation is compatible with and complimentary to that use.

Policy T1 supports the extension of the tourist season.

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

Policy T7 sets out sites suitable for tourism related development, for example Shanklin Esplanade, Battery Gardens, Sandown Bay Leisure Centre, The Old Reservoir and Los Altos Park and Culver Parade and land at Yaverland.

Policy T9 refers to small scale rural tourism, ancillary to an existing farming operation such as farmhouse accommodation or a change of use from residential properties to hotels or restaurants, or the conversion of suitable farm or rural buildings that are directly related to existing heritage and landscape qualities of the area.

Policy C1 sets out the need to maintain and protect the landscape, development of which may affect the landscape character and overall distinctiveness of the area.

Policy C17 states that planning applications for the reuse and adaptation of rural buildings for employment, recreational or tourism purposes will be approved, provided that:

a) the building is of substantial, sound and permanent construction and is structurally capable of reuse and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction;

b) proposed conversion respects local character, building styles and materials and would not entail any loss of significant archaeological or architectural features both internal and external, which contribute to the character of the building and its surroundings;

c) the traffic generated by the new use can be safely accommodated by the site access and local road system and there is sufficient room within the curtilage for servicing and vehicle parking without detriment to the visual amenity of the area;

d) no new fences, walls or other structures associated with the use will be erected if they would harm the amenity of the area;

e) if within an agricultural holding it will not lead to the erection of new buildings and conditions or agreements are applied prohibiting further extensions, alterations or outbuildings;

f) approval may be subject to reduced time limits for implementation, so that any structural survey remains relevant;

g) the form, bulk and general design of the building are in keeping with its surroundings.

PPG7 relates to countryside and the rural environment detailing the need to preserve the countryside and supports rural tourism.

PPG21 relates to tourism and gives advice on Government support for tourism.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer recommends the hours limited to 0800 to 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0900 to 1400 hours on Saturdays and prohibit it on Sundays and Bank Holidays in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Original recommendation for refusal from Highway Engineers, on grounds that:

· No assessment as specified in UDP Policy TR4 has been submitted.

· Essential improvements to the adjacent bus stops have not been considered.

· Proposed right hand turn lane is inadequate (too short).

· Proposed carriageway widening would encroach upon highway ditch.

· Inadequate signage.

· Access road, width and kerb radii inadequate.

· Car park layout unsatisfactory.

It would appear that, with correct considerations, most of these details and objections could be overcome with substantial engineering works. Revised plans show highway improvements negotiated with the Engineers who recommend condition is consent is granted.

County Ecology Officer confirms that he could find no evidence of protected species using the buildings. Acknowledged the existence of a barn owl box in one building but that it is not used. Birds nests were evident and the modern roosts are such that the buildings are unsuitable for use by bats. Observed two old ash trees which are valuable for wildlife, stating that they should be retained with appropriate action taken if birds or bats are found. Acknowledges that the application is a large area of farmland containing hedges, ponds and marsh and that badgers are known to be present. Considers that, in the event of planning permission being granted a detailed landscaping scheme should be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority which should take account of public access routes and existing ecology sensitive areas and their enhancement.

Rights of Way Section do not foresee any difficulties and have informed the applicants of the existence of the rights of way and the need to ensure they remain undamaged and open.

Island Tourist Industry Association supports the proposal, pointing out that the development fits into the Regional Spatial Strategy and represents an example of diversification from an uneconomical farm offering few jobs into a tourist attraction offering up to thirty full-time jobs. Also points out that such developments are necessary to succeed as a major tourist designation and that the investment such as proposed should be given as much encouragement as possible. They continue by stating that the venture is unique and caters for different audiences from educational to the casual visitor and that the proposal has already attracted funding from DEFRA and praise from English Nature.

Scottish and Southern Energy plc raise not objection but acknowledges that the development would appear to affect their equipment and therefore health and safety guidelines must be adhered to.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Newchurch Parish Council support the proposal but does share concerns expressed by the Vectis Astronomical Society regarding lighting and potential light pollution.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE point out development would result in the loss of agricultural land and buildings and that the application has insufficient information properly to assess the implications with regard to viability and clarification of the proposed uses.

Ramblers Association raise concern that rights of way are not shown on the plans and there may be a possible adverse affect on them.

IOW Observatory raise question of lighting and consequent light pollution.

Seven letters of objection from local and Island residents objecting on grounds of inadequate and dangerous access on a fast piece of road; that noise generated by the activities especially at weekends and evenings would be unacceptable; adverse effects on rights of way; adverse effects on habitats for fauna presently using the site; increased traffic exiting onto a dangerous and fast piece of highway; inappropriate development in the countryside are site which is outside any designated development envelope concluding that such a development would be contrary to policy; visually intrusive development; overlooking of adjoining properties and loss of agricultural land and buildings.

Island Tourist Industry Association supports the proposal stating that proposal fits into Regional Spatial Strategy, that it forms first class example of diversification from a non economical farm to a tourist attraction offering thirty full time jobs. It forms a major investment on the Island which fits with the Tourist Development Plan and that this unique attraction with funding from DEFRA and praise by English Nature.

Further letter from CPRE comments on revised plans to the effect that only the use of the buildings and complex near the highway are referred to and that the site of 33.5 hectares is to be involved and that there is a clear intention to develop the whole site; that there is no design statement and that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be made. Furthermore, expresses astonishment that, previously, despite the recommendation for refusal, the resolution was to accept the development in principle which is contrary to policies C1, G2 and G5 of the Unitary Development Plan. In addition, expresses the opinion that the applicants have gone no way towards providing sufficient details for a more appropriate scheme for this vast site.

Isle of Wight Tourism support the proposal and support the chosen location as they consider it ideal in terms of tourist access.

Letter of support from Wightlink pointing out the need for indoor attractions and that such a venue would be linked with a "package" approach from the ferry operator.

Letter of comment from the Isle of Wight Observatory pointing out that there is no information regarding lighting (and consequent pollution) and no details of road lighting connected with the realignment. Expresses concern about the proximity of the proposed themed park to the Isle of Wight Observatory which is in Watery Lane and although does not raise a particular objection to the establishment of a themed park, expresses a personal misgiving about its location in a predominantly farming area.

A further five letters of objection, some from previous writers on grounds of inappropriate use in a rural area; conflict with established Rights of Way; loss of habitats; introduction of a noisy use which would cause disturbance; increased vehicular use and subsequent traffic dangers; development contrary to UDP policy; development out of character with the rural area and creation of a strong precedent in respect of similar developments elsewhere and questioning the use of the remainder of the site if development is approved in the comparatively limited area shown in the application.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

In essence this application seeks to use the former teaching farm buildings and land as a tourist attraction, a site which is located within the predominantly rural and agricultural landscape. Determination therefore turns on matters relating to policy and principle, access considerations; affect on the area generally and, more specifically, the effects on neighbouring properties.

Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that developments should be judged against the policies of the Development Plan and should be determined in accordance with that Plan unless there are sustainable and substantial reasons for departing from that document.

Policy S1 requires that new development will be concentrated within existing urban areas and Policy S2 allows for the reuse of brownfield sites but Policy S3 requires that new development of a large scale will be expected to be located in or adjacent to the defined development envelopes of the main Island towns so that Policy S4 can protect the countryside from inappropriate development. Policy S5 supports developments which, on balance (bearing in mind all the part 2 policies) will be for the overall benefit of the Island.

This site is outside of the existing urban areas, in an area of open countryside. New developments which require a rural or countryside location can find support within S5 and the more detailed policies of the Plan. This is a tourism development and does not need to be located in a rural area, indeed it would be better located in a more sustainable position within the tourism areas identified in the UDP so that it draws on a much more conveniently located patronage rather than in a more isolated location.

The general policies may support some development in such areas but only if they are necessarily located and do not create adverse impacts in the landscape or in terms of access traffic and are visually sympathetic in their setting. Policy G5 supports those developments connected with agriculture or recreation and sports, it is simply that those activities could not be carried out within the urban area and do need a countryside location. This enterprise does not need to be located in a rural area and a departure from local planning policy is not warranted.

Any development which is carried out within or outside of the development envelope should not impact unacceptably on adjoining properties and Policy D1 seeks the achieve development which is sympathetic and design in visual terms but also seeks to ensure that such activities do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. In this instance the level of activity likely from such a tourist development will impact on the adjoining or nearby properties and would therefore be contrary to Policy D1(H).

Policy E1 supports developments which generate employment in appropriate locations and, of course, any tourist development is likely to be an employment generator, albeit on a comparatively limited scale. The principle of this development is not in dispute and, naturally the generation of employment would be welcomed. However, its location as an employment generator should be, according to Policy E1, within or adjacent to an existing settlement so as to reduce the need to travel to work by car, similarly, in this location not only the employees but the patrons would need to travel to the site. If located on an allocated tourism site it would be more easily accessible for patrons.

Policy E8 supports employment generated in the countryside providing they are the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural building or where the development is associated with an existing farm complex. Policy E8 supports the development provided that it is a suitable building and Policy C17 relates directly to the reuse of rural buildings which will be discussed later.

Policies T1 and T2 support tourism related development, especially those which will extend the season which can be taken as including indoor facilities but PPG21, in promoting the tourist industry points out the objective is to achieve "sustainable development" that serves the interest of both economic growth and conservation of the environment and, of course, where employment is generated for a greater length of time, such impacts on winter unemployment are of course welcomed.

In stating that the principle of development is welcomed, which it is, the location chosen is felt inappropriate and Policy T7 sets out several general locations where extensive areas of land have been allocated for tourism developments and, in the current context, Shanklin Esplanade, Battery Gardens, Sandown Bay Leisure Centre, Old Reservoir and Los Altos Park and especially Culver Parade and land at Yaverland are considered particularly appropriate for the proposal. These sites are considered key sites where the Council aims to encourage tourism development and the promotion of tourism facilities.

Policy T9 relates to small scale rural tourism where ancillary to an existing farming operation but relates mainly to accommodation as it supports expansion of an existing hotel or guest house or farmhouse accommodation or ancillary accommodation for tourists within an existing establishment.

Policy C1 seeks to preserve the landscape character and although the site is not located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is an open landscape where long distance views from and to the site are available.

PPG7 states that "priority now is to find new ways of which in the quality of the whole countryside, whilst accommodating appropriate development, in order to compliment the protection which designations offer. The Countryside Commission and English Nature have analysed the distinctive features of the English Countryside (including the Isle of Wight) in both landscape and nature conservation terms, identifying areas (or zones) of cohesive character, which can be described in terms of their landscape character, sense of place, local distinctiveness, characteristics of wildlife and natural features and the nature of change".

Policy C17 relates directly to the reuse and adaptation of a rural building for employment, recreational or tourism purposes and therefore, in principle it may seem appropriate to use this complex of buildings for a tourism use.

Policy C17 contains caveats which states that the building should be of substantial, sound and permanent construction and structurally capable of reuse and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction. These buildings are all modern, that is to say post 1919. They are steel framed and clad with profiled sheeting on both the roofs and much of the sides with some walls in masonry of limited height. The plans suggest that, only the essential skeleton of the building will be used, much of the cladding replaced or covered over and therefore the adaptations are major.

Furthermore many of the buildings are to be demolished, some being replaced with new structures and of the approximately 1,260 square metres of buildings to remain on the site, approximately 490 square metres will be new build or replacement buildings. This represents a figure of nearly 40% of rebuild with only just over 60% of existing buildings remaining of which all will be substantially altered.

Policy C17 also expects the conversion to respect local character, styles and materials and that the traffic generated can be safely accommodated by the site access and local road system with the provision of parking and turning without detriment to the visual amenity of the area. Extensive alterations will need to be made to the road layout to accommodate a right turn lane into the site with a new access and substantial car and coach parking area to accommodate the patrons. Policy C17 also requires that the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with its surroundings. This substantial development which is supportable in principle is, in my view, proposed on the wrong site and in the wrong buildings and whilst being contrary to Policy C17 will impact on many of the other policies mentioned above.

The majority of these buildings are steel framed and of comparatively modern construction. They are of little architectural merit but the adaptation is proposed to be carried out by erection of some buff facing brick walls to half height and timber, vertical stained cladding above with natural or corrugated steel roofs with the intention of unifying all the buildings in this particular colour/finish scheme. The buildings would, however, retain their basic agricultural appearance and style but it is inevitable but that the character of the buildings will alter since the additions to the complex of buildings include the covered link incorporating a small 'bell tower' and the new glass house styled cafe and new cook house, all of these policies offer some degree of support subject to provisos which mitigate against adverse effects and therefore determination of the application in terms of policy needs to be carefully considered.

In terms of access, the change of use as proposed is inevitably going to result in an increase in use. Hitherto access to the teaching unit involved a lesser number of persons accessing and leaving the site, persons who would have been familiar with the attributes of access. The new use would involve access by persons unfamiliar with the access and would involve the manoeuvring of coaches into and out of the site. The new use will also involve the increased frequency of visits but, in favour of the development, the access point has been moved approximately 80 metres to the west. This would enable improved visibility in both directions and includes the removal of a substantial length of hedgerow to improve visibility. Such a removal, if permitted or required would need to be accompanied by reinstatement in a more suitable position farther back into the site to ensure a character of this area is not significantly adversely affected.

The increased use of the access and its resiting closer to residential property is likely to result in disturbance to properties on the northeastern side of the A3054 but the degree of additional disturbance will be exacerbated by the hours of operation.

All policies mentioned above stress the importance of the need to harmonise any development into an area. Policy G5, whilst stating that development may exceptionally be permitted in the countryside (in a rural location) if it is of benefit to the rural economy, as well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale if it is an appropriate rural tourism development. However such developments will not be acceptable where it would cause the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural, horticultural or forestry land or reduce the quality of the environment and landscape. Similarly T1 and T2 also seek to minimise any detrimental or adverse impact. Policy C17 allows for adaptation of rural buildings for recreational purposes so long as environmental or detailed factors are satisfied such as adequate access and parking facilities can be provided and other structures associated with the use should not harm the amenity of the area. The proposed use must generate higher levels of traffic, drawing on at least Sandown and Shanklin tourists if not Island wide tourists, encouraging additional use of a private car rather than public transport and it may be more appropriate if such a use were sited on those areas which have been designated for tourism developments in the UDP. Increased vehicle activity, noise and light pollution, especially if the opening hours are long are all likely to impact on the character of this area.

Turning to affect on neighbouring properties, there are probably 9 residential properties in relatively close proximity to the complex of buildings which would be adversely affected by any increase in noise or light pollution, especially if external activities took place and the opening hours were extended into the evenings. The two properties which are most likely to be affected are the cottage situated adjoining the northwestern boundary, some 80 metres from the car park and Purbeck House located only 20 metres from the nearest building, a new structure proposed to be used for craft workshops and display. In addition the manoeuvring of vehicles the manoeuvring of vehicles, including coaches around and in and out of the car park onto the highway is likely to result in disturbance to properties immediately opposite the site. Increased noise levels from the site, especially from external activities or noisy internal activities if the buildings are not insulated correctly will inevitably impact on other residential properties further afield.

It should be remembered that there are public footpaths which traverse the site, one of which passes the complex of buildings in extremely close proximity. Bearing in mind it is the applicants declared intention to operate pony rides throughout the open fields attached to the complex of buildings there may be some conflict with preventing unauthorised access. However, the applicants have been advised of the need to maintain free passage along the footpaths so that the rights of way could not be blocked.

In summary it is acknowledged that UDP policies partially support such a proposal, given the appropriate site. However, taking the implications of the proposals as a whole, bearing in mind the proposed activities, the details of the conversion, the significant amount of new buildings and degree of refurbishment, the increase in vehicular access and egress to and from the site, the sites relative isolation from its main source of patronage and the implications of sustainability, I consider the site to be inappropriate for the proposed use which would be more appropriately sited in the tourism area of Sandown or Shanklin rather than in open countryside. Accordingly I consider the proposal would be contrary to Policy C17 and T2 where such new facilities should be located in sustainable locations. Similarly the proposal would be contrary to G5 as it is felt that in this rural location the site is particularly visible and the development and its associated activity would reduce the quality of the environment and landscape. I would therefore conclude that the development is inappropriate and should be refused.

FURTHER EVALUATION

Following Members' previous consideration of this application in March of last year, the applicants have amended their submission taking account of the Committee's resolution to defer and to negotiate changes to the scheme by the erection of replacement buildings, to carry out road improvements to ensure more appropriate access and to carry out an acoustic survey.

On the question of design, the replacement buildings are considered to be in line with Members' request to produce buildings which are of a traditional, Victorian theme, consistent with the proposed use.

In terms of the access improvements, the consultant highway engineers employed by the applicants have liaised with the Council's Highway Engineers and have produced a scheme for road improvements to allow for the provision of a central right-turn lane for vehicles entering the site from the west, involving the widening of the carriageway and the associated drainage and boundary works to facilitate the improvement. This specification meets the Highway Engineers' requirements and subject to the replanting of the hedgerow behind the visibility line, this road improvement is considered to be acceptable.

In terms of the acoustic report, findings from the Environmental Health Officer had not been received at the time of preparation of this report and will be reported at the meeting.

The three issues required by the Development Control Committee have been investigated and further information and plans submitted. Subject to the appropriate choice of materials, landscaping and conditions in respect of the use, it is felt that the scheme as revised will meet with Members' expectations. It is, however, pointed out that despite the additional information, the revised plans describing the rebuilding of buildings at the site, the proposal is contrary to UDP policies regarding the reuse of rural buildings and other tourism policies as well as countryside protection policies and general policies contained within the UDP. I remain of the opinion that the development is contrary to policy and maintain my recommendation for refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 have 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.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Whilst there is a presumption in favour of development in the interests of the Council's desire to promote tourism and to generate employment it is felt that, in this instance, the location of the proposed use is inappropriate bearing in mind the level of activity likely to take place on site and the resultant effect on adjoining properties. The conversion of this complex of buildings including the erection of new, additional buildings of substantial scale would not be consistent with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) nor consistent with Policies T2 and G5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal represents the introduction of a substantial tourist attraction in a rural area and the physical impact of the use would conflict with the Local Planning Authority's intention to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and therefore would conflict with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), G2 (Consolidation of Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

On the basis of the information available the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the buildings are structurally capable of retention and refurbishment and therefore any works required to retain the structures would be likely to result in new buildings rather than conversion of existing structures and would therefore be contrary to Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3	The introduction of a Victorian Themed Park as proposed would introduce a level of activity which would generate significant levels of noise pollution to the detriment of the nearby residential properties and would therefore be contrary to Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/16281/U P/01937/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ashey

Registration Date: 03/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Applicant: Mr L Weller and Miss K Childs

Variation and removal of conditions nos. 1 and 2 on TCP/16281S to allow continued siting of mobile home

Oak Tree Farm, Carters Road, Upton, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334BP

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application relates to continued siting of a mobile home which has been subject of previous temporary renewals and which requires Members' consideration given changes in agricultural activity undertaken on site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken some eighteen weeks to date due primarily to workload and need for independent assessment to be carried out.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to 2.84 hectare agricultural holding situated on southern side of Carters Road which is a public highway which runs from Upton crossroads to Smallbrook mini-roundabout. The main site is located approximately some 140 metres south of Carters Road and is served by an access trackway.

Sites presently contain several buildings together with mobile home. Approximately one hectare is grazed woodland and remainder comprises grazing land/farm buildings. At present time there appears to be no agricultural activity on site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In respect of larger area of land which comprised in part current application site, an outline application for agricultural worker's dwelling was refused in October 1977. This decision being dismissed on appeal the following year. Again, on larger holding outline for agricultural worker's dwelling refused in June 1981 with identical application and decision subsequently issued in June 1982.

The following planning applications relate to holding as currently existing.

Planning consent granted in October 1986 for calf unit building and initial temporary approval granted for siting of agricultural worker's mobile home. This permission granted in December 1986 for temporary period of three years.

In July 1988 outline application was made for agricultural worker's dwelling and on basis of changed agricultural activity on site application was refused.

First application seeking to renew temporary consent for mobile home was submitted in September 1989 and a further three year temporary consent was granted in November of that year.

Subsequent three year temporary consents were issued in December 1992 and May 1996.

Again renewals were issued in 1998 and 2001 to allow continued siting until 31 December 2004.

During this time planning consent granted for feed store, goat house and milking and processing buildings in 1998.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks consent to extend temporary period for a further two/three years in order that prospective purchasers are able to establish agricultural enterprise on site. Application also seeks removal of personal condition. In support of application agent states that personal condition makes it impossible to sell current holding and additional time period will allow prospective purchasers to establish their own agricultural activity on site which will be starting from scratch. A further temporary period will give them the comfort they need to purchase the unit and establish business.

Application is also accompanied by supporting statement prepared by agricultural consultant, business plan and letter of support from local businesses.

In summary, appraisal advises that proposed business centres around free range egg production accounting for some two thirds of turnover and a number of other enterprises including pig production and vegetable/fruit production. Holding was previously used for free range egg production and current occupants claim to have kept up to 1200 laying hens. Applicant intends to keep approximately 500 laying hens which should easily be accommodated on available land and buildings. There appears to be sufficient grassland area to accommodate laying flock while low intensity pig enterprise could be run in grazed woodland. Vegetable and fruit production would appear to be on a small scale and its success or failure would not be fundamental to business profitability. No standard man/day analysis has been carried out, however, it is estimated that business would justify one full-time employee and there appears to be additional relief labour available for family members. Applicant intends to fund capital required by sale of current dwelling and lack of borrowed money will give business greater chance of success. Business plan provided shows estimated annual profit before tax or capital reinvestment of £15,500.

Main stay of business is free range egg production, this is well proven and established agricultural sector with markets available both on Island and mainland. Consultant advises that projected profit would not seem unreasonable for such enterprise and concludes that presence of laying hens, pigs and sensitive horticultural crops would suggest that there is a need to live on the holding. Assuming applicant can successfully establish free range egg enterprise and supplement this with income from small scale pig herd/horticultural enterprise there is a reasonable chance of creating a viable farm enterprise, this is assisted further by absence of borrowed money and no requirement for paid labour.

Application has been reviewed by Council's own agricultural consultant and his comments are reported later in report.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national policy is contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development).

Relevant local plan policies are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G2 - Consolidation Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries

C16 - New Dwellings Supporting Agriculture and Forestry

Site lies in open countryside well outside any established development envelope boundaries but not subject to any special designations.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer's comments not received at time of preparing report.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received from Campaign to Protect Rural England who comments that in view of preparation of business plan it is considered there is bona fide agricultural venture and as applicants appear to have home elsewhere, mobile home application seems a way of monitoring establishment of business until it becomes viable. It is suggested that any approval should be given on time limited basis and does not become permanent residence in countryside together with agricultural occupancy condition and its removal at the end of a specified period.

Two letters have been received objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Holding comprises limited land area which would require very high level of stock and produce to become viable.

Present owner has been living on site for many years and farming has not provided adequate living.

Undesirable intensification of buildings which adversely affect visual amenities of area.

Possible ground contamination.

Inadequate drainage detail.

Inadequate justification.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

In considering applications of this nature specific guidance is contained within national guidance i.e. PPG7 and in particular Annex i which relates to agricultural dwellings.

The guidance note points out that one of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development in countryside may be justified is when accommodation is required to enable farm or forestry workers to live at or in the immediate vicinity of their place of work. Advice in respect of temporary agricultural dwellings states that if a new dwelling is required to support a new farming activity whether on a newly created agricultural unit or an established one this should normally be for the first three years provided by a caravan which can easily be dismantled or other temporary accommodation. It should also satisfy the following criteria:

· Clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned (significant investment in new farm buildings is often a good indicator)

· Functional need

· Clear evidence that proposed enterprise has been planned on sound financial basis

· Functional need cannot be fulfilled by another dwelling on the unit or existing accommodation in the locality

· Other normal planning requirements e.g. siting and access

This approach is also reflected in Development Plan policy i.e. policies G5 and H9.

Members should note that by way of background in dealing with the application for renewal in May 1996 it was noted that due to personal circumstances the agricultural activity carried on site had declined to a level which, in normal circumstances, would not justify the continued siting of residential accommodation on the land. The permission was granted, taking into account the applicant's personal circumstances and a decision notice was accompanied by a letter advising that a further temporary permission had been granted in order to allow a further opportunity to clearly establish an agricultural enterprise on the site.

Given that application is made by prospective owner who wishes to operate holding in different manner application should be assessed against guidance within PPG7 to ascertain whether proposal meets criteria laid out in Annex i.

The application, business plan and independent consultant's report have been considered by Council's own agricultural consultant who comments as follows:

"At present time there are no agricultural activities being pursued on site, however, applicants are proposing to purchase farm in order to introduce the following agricultural enterprise, i.e. 500 hens for free range egg producing, 72 ducks for egg production, three pigs for breeding and ten goats for milk production and meat. In addition there will be fruit and vegetables with the initial production based on 2000 strawberry plants, 100 asparagus plants and 50 rhubarb plants. In the second year it is intended to plant out 100 raspberry canes, fruit trees and holly trees. Produce from farm will be sold to local businesses and also from farm shops."

It terms of a functional need, in considering this test consultant has considered whether it is essential that proper function of enterprise would require one or more workers to be readily available at most times. Numbers of livestock proposed are modest and taking strict interpretation of PPG7 he is unable to conclude that there is an essential need for one or more workers to be readily available at most times.

With regards financial issues, whilst applicants have suggested enterprise can produce a profit of £15,000 per annum he considers these figures to be optimistic and does not consider that such a level of profitability can be achieved given proposed stocking/cropping of applicant. He is of the view that income attributed to free range chicken and duck egg sales are generally optimistic and unlikely to be achieved. He also considers buildings to be reaching end of their economic life with consequent implications for maintenance costs. In addition he does not consider that proposed costs make provision for all costs incurred in enterprises.

Given limited size of holding continued viability of operating this site has not been easy to achieve and it is only fair to point out that whilst the current owner has been given several temporary consents for the continued siting of a mobile home on this site, whilst initially this was to allow the enterprise to establish itself the latter renewals were also partly based on personal circumstances of applicant and to allow further opportunities for viable unit to operate.

Nevertheless application has been made by prospective purchaser who wishes to make fresh start in respect of operating site and therefore application should be treated as if submission was seeking siting of mobile home in connection with establishing agricultural enterprise. Council's consultant is of the opinion that business as proposed does not meet criteria within PPG7 in that there is no essential need for one or more workers to be readily available on site at most times. Indeed, applicant's own consultant is unable to specifically conclude that there is a need to live on the holding and has not subjected the business proposed to any standard man/day analysis.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of 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.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am not satisfied that a holding of this size and/or proposed agricultural activity would meet functional need as outlined in PPG7 for one or more workers to be readily available at most times on site for its proper functioning. Additionally, there is doubt that enterprise would be financially viable in long term and therefore it is not considered the proposal complies with either national policy or local policy in respect of agricultural worker's dwellings located within the countryside.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Although the Local Planning Authority is prepared to make an exception to its normally restrictive policies with regards to residential development in the countryside where an agricultural justification can be proven, it is not considered that on an assessment of the application and supporting documentation accompanying this application that such a case has been put forward. Accordingly the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal has been shown to be essential in the interests of agriculture and is therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policy S4 (The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development) and Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and contrary to guidance and advice contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development).

TCP/18547/C P/01753/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 01/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Williams

2 storey building to provide 2 maisonettes; formation of vehicular access & parking

land adjacent 25, Albany View, Camp Hill, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member, Councillor Price, as he was not prepared to authorise under agreed delegated powers procedure. He is concerned about the adequacy of the drainage system to accommodate further development. He also suggests that materials should reflect neighbouring properties.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken nineteen weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications because of on-going negotiations and consultations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an almost rectangular site being approximately 23 metres in depth and 15 metres in width with a frontage boundary to Albany View. Site is on the western side of Albany View located at the southern end of that road. Existing development fronting Albany View and other roads in the area consist in the main of semi-detached and terraced houses which are mainly of brick and render construction. The site contains two large oak trees situated towards the front of the site, one being in close proximity to the northern boundary and the other similarly located close to the southern boundary.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/18547A - P927/00 - Outline for one house. Consent granted 13 March 2001.

TCP/18547B - P975/02 - Block of 4 maisonettes. Withdrawn 24 July 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for a two storey building providing two maisonettes. The building is shown to be situated towards the rear of the site in order to minimise impact on the two protected oak trees at the front. The site is shown to be served by a new access and permeable driveway with two parking spaces immediately forward of the proposed building. The building is shown to be constructed of facing brick at ground floor level, rendered at first floor level under a plain clay tile roof.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities while also stressing the need for good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people will choose to live.

Site is situated within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 - New Development will be concentrated within Existing Urban Areas.

S6 - All Development will be expected to be of a High Standard of Design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

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

H5 - Infill Development.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

Findings of the Housing Needs Survey are also considered relevant which identifies among other needs a demand for smaller homes.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Southern Water confirm that the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require their approval. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. No surface water should be discharged to the foul sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. The sewers in this area do not drain through Prior Crescent where there has been flooding in the past.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received from a local resident asking that the following factors are taken into consideration:

Drainage.

Proposal may not provide sufficient parking.

Proposed design should replicate adjoining properties.

Conditions should be imposed to minimise impact on protected trees.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Newport and is subject of an extant consent for a detached dwelling. The principle of residential development on this site is therefore considered to be acceptable. The proposal has been designed as a detached building, but would in fact offer two maisonettes and therefore, in my opinion, would make best use of this site whilst also providing accommodation that is recognised as most needed in the Housing Needs Survey.

Careful consideration has gone into the siting of the proposed building in order to minimise the impact of the development on two protected oak trees towards the front of the site. The Council's Tree Officer has inspected the site and is happy with the proposal subject to conditions in respect of protective fencing, excavation work and the formation of a permeable driveway. The need to keep the development away from the trees has necessitated building being in close proximity to the rear boundary with the potential of impacting on properties behind. However, having regard to a vacant area of land immediately behind, the acceptable spatial relationship with neighbours together with a sensitive arrangement of windows, I am of the opinion that impact on neighbouring properties would not be significant or unacceptable.

In terms of drainage, Members will note that consent has already been granted for a detached house. It is my opinion that sewage associated with two small maisonettes as proposed would not be significantly different to the approved dwelling. I would, however, suggest a condition stating that no development shall take place until a detailed drainage scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

In terms of design, the agent has agreed to render the first floor section of the proposed development in order that it is more in keeping with adjoining properties. As far as parking is concerned, the submitted plan identifies one space per dwelling. This is considered to be sufficient and complies with the parking guidelines prescribed under UDP policies.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposal would make efficient use of the site without compromising the two protected oak trees or the built environment in general. I recognise the concern in respect of drainage, but feel that this would not provide a justifiable reason for refusal bearing in mind the extant consent for a detached dwelling and that a condition can be imposed requesting that drainage details are agreed before development commences. I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable and complies with policies contained in the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Submission of samples - S03

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be retained thereafter in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details of the proposed access, driveway and parking area have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include levels, means of construction and final surface treatment. Development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed details and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of health and stability of the nearby protected oak trees and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the two protected oak trees 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.

(c)No placement or storage of excavated soil.

(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.

Reason: In the interests of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than one metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm

2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed.

Both first floor rear facing windows shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/20090/H P/01881/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin North

Registration Date: 25/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M J Moss

Removal of condition no.4 on TCP/20090/F to allow the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding

new dwelling 18, Princes Way, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Councillor Mr Williams, has not agreed to process the application under the delegated procedure and requested application come before the Development Control Committee, as he considers case to be finely balanced.

APPLICATION PROCESSING

The processing of the application has taken 20 weeks to process, this is due to the need for the Committee to consider the application and further information having to be obtained from Highways.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a new dwelling located on the southern side of Princes Way. Princes Way is accessed from Sandy Lane which is a busy road with houses either side. Princes Way is a quieter road serving the dwellings in the vicinity and forms a through road to Green Lane to the east. Area is primarily residential.

The dwelling has been constructed in the rear garden of the property known as Edricpa, and constructed of buff brick under a red tile roof with a boundary wall of approximately 1.8 metres fronting onto Princes Way.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/20090/D - Outline permission for a chalet bungalow with integral garage and vehicular access was refused on the grounds of inadequate visibility and lack of turning.

TCP/20090/E - Outline consent for chalet bungalow was refused. Subsequently appealed, appeal was dismissed on grounds of potential harm to living conditions of future occupants of Edricpa. Inspector concluded that despite there was no provision for parking on site this was not considered to be detrimental to highway safety.

TCP/20090/F - Outline permission was granted in 2002 subject to conditions one being that no access would be formed from the site.

TCP/20090/G - Approval of reserved matters in 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Current application seeks consent for the provision of a new access. Access is shown to be west of the new dwelling adjacent to the boundary of Edricpa. Plans also detail a reduction in the height of the wall on the north boundary to 900 mm and the removal of hedging and cupressus trees. Parking space is shown to be 2.5 metres wide by 4.9 metres deep. The wall to the west of the proposed access is shown to be reduced in height also to 900 mm., no turning is detailed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within the development envelope for Shanklin as defined within the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policy is TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the UDP.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has recommended the application for refusal on the grounds that there is inadequate visibility to serve the access.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council make no comment in respect of the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of support has been received; access would facilitate vehicles to be parked off road.

One letter of objection has been received; on grounds that Princes Way is a busy road and the junction to Sandy Lane is in close proximity.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factor in considering application is policy and whether the formation of the access onto Princes Way would compromise highway safety, in terms of visibility.

I refer Members to the appeal decision TCP/20090/E when application was made for outline for chalet bungalow with no parking detailed. Application was refused on the grounds of the effect on the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties and insufficient parking and turning area and the potential that the development would attract vehicles standing in the highway that would interrupt the free flow of traffic on the public highway that is in close proximity to junction of Princes Way and Sandy Lane.

Inspector in his report referred to Princes Way as

"A quiet residential road with ample room for on-street parking if necessary and that this need not be so close to the junction as to endanger highway safety. Indeed, on my visit I saw both the appellant's agent and Council's representative parked outside the appeal site and I saw no harm in this. On this issue I therefore conclude that the proposal would not lead to any demonstrable risk to highway safety and would not conflict with the deposit draft UDP Policy TR16".

The agent in a letter accompanying the application considered that a sub-standard access would be preferable to on-street parking.

Applicant is registered as disabled and proposal will improve the access to the property for him and will help keep vehicles away from road junction.

Highways Authority recommend refusal on the grounds of inadequate visibility, highway safety has to be of paramount importance and therefore I have no other alternative than to make my recommendation accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of 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.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to this report, I am of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and in respect of the fact that there is not sufficient visibility to serve the proposed access, and this is considered to outweigh the personal circumstances of the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The access proposed is unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate visibility, the proposal is therefore contrary to the intentions of Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/21445/G P/02422/03 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 08/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Warrant Trustees Ltd

Demolition of jetty structure; replacement timber framed jetty

North House, High Street, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410PN

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Councillor Mrs Butchers, contacted the office shortly after publication of application concerned that, due to the increase in length of the jetty, it would be visually intrusive and adversely affect visual amenities of local residents. Therefore, she has requested that application is considered by the Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken ten weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to workload and the need for Committee Decision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is located approximately 160m West of Yarmouth Pier. Similar structures/jetties are within close proximity, of varying length, along this northeastern coast. Site is within Special Area of Conservation, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Site of Special Scientific Interest. Proposed jetty is required for use in connection with residential property fronting High Street, which is a Grade II Listed Building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21445/F – Consent granted October 2003 for a replacement flag pole

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought for demolition of jetty structure and its replacement with a new timber frame jetty. Existing jetty is approximately 24m in length and proposed jetty would be 31m long, representing an increase in overall length by 29%. Existing jetty is of relatively poor condition and has reached the end of its useful life, therefore being in need of replacement.

The decking to the existing jetty is level with the ground where it abuts the foreshore with steps to lower level approximately midway along its length. Plans which accompanied original submission show replacement jetty at same level along its whole length, at a height above the sea level equivalent to the highest point of the existing structure. Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing a reduction in height of the jetty, roughly equivalent to that of lower part of the existing structure with steps up to the foreshore at its landward end. In addition, the alignment of the jetty has been revised to run more at right angle to sea wall.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

SIO - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C8 – Nature Conservation of a Materials Consideration

C9 – Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation

B2 - Settings of a Listed Building

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

There are considered to be no highway implications associated with this proposal.

Conservation Officer comments that although new structure would be larger than the existing one, it would be of traditional design and construction, similar to others in the locality. Therefore, he does not consider that proposal would adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Building.

AONB Officer raises no objections

English Nature advise that proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the European Site and will not require appropriate assessment. Similarly there will not be a detrimental effect of the SSSI features and English Nature does not object to this proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Yarmouth Town Council draw attention to issue relating to public access and safety under the pier at high tide.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from owner of neighbouring property objecting on grounds that proposal would have adverse effect on outlook from their property.

Royal Solent Yacht Club initially objected to the application on grounds that the new jetty, particularly its length would cause hazard to yachts negotiating start/finish line during races. In addition, they were concerned that increase in height of structure and feature framework at its northern end would restrict view of boats approaching the start/finish line. Following submission of revised plans the club has withdrawn their objection to the proposal.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties together with the potential impact on the coastal processes within the European designated and SSSI.

Application site is located on area of coastline where other jetty/pier structures of varying length are a feature of the locality. The largest of these include Yarmouth Pier itself having a length of approximately 200m and the landing stage serving the Royal Solent Yacht Club which has a length of 50m. Having regard to the character of the area, I do not consider that the proposal would result in the introduction of an alien feature or that the increase in length over and above the existing structure would have a significant impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by adjoining property occupiers. In particular, Conservation Officer is satisfied that proposal would not adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area or the setting of the adjacent Listed Building.

Having regard to the fact that proposal involves replacement of an existing jetty, albeit with a longer structure, it is considered that any impact of the proposal on coastal processes within the area would be minimal. In particular, following consultation with English Nature, I am satisfied that the development will not have a significant or adverse affect on the special features of interest within the Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. In any event, I do not consider that refusal of application on grounds of any likely impact on these designations would be sustainable.

The existing jetty structure has cross bracing between the support pillars along the length of the structure and submitted plans indicate that proposed jetty would have cross bracing between pillars from side to side. Therefore, whilst noting comments of the Town Council, it is considered that the proposed structure is less likely to impede public access to the foreshore in the area under the jetty.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of 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 carry out the development in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the right 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 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal reflects the local character and distinctiveness and will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In addition, the proposals unlikely to have significant effect on the European Site and the SSSI. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with policies of the Unitary Development Plan and, in particular, satisfies policies C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), D1 (Standards of Design), C8 (Nature Conservation of a Materials Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and B2 (Settings of a Listed Building) of the Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Any piling operations associated with the construction/installation of the jetty hereby approved shall only be carried out between the hours of 0700 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 hours and 1800 hours on Saturday and at no other time, including Sundays and recognised Bank Holidays, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the potential noise nuisance from the proposed operations in the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/23168/Z P/02389/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Parkhurst

Registration Date: 05/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Western Challenge Housing Association

Key worker accommodation in a complex of 4/5 storey buildings, associated parking & amenity area; landscaping

St. Marys Hospital, Parkhurst Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305TG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission of significant importance involving a particular type of residential accommodation and therefore raising a number of issues warranting Committee determination.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application will have taken ten weeks to process if a decision is made this evening; within the BVPI target of thirteen weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site located to the south east of the main hospital building and to the north west of the memorial gardens and west of the recently constructed replacement Newcroft building adjacent Dodnor Lane. Site is generally elevated with single storey administration building and car park to the north west and a two storey red brick nurses accommodation building (Margham House) to south east. To the north east lies open fields and to the south west an existing car park. Site generally slopes from the north west to the south east with a slightly lesser slope from the south west to the north east.

Site itself is partly within an existing tennis court area, part of an existing car park and land lying between the car park, access road and Margham House.

Vehicular access would be via the existing service road to the north west of the site and the adjacent car parking on the south west side. Site contains no specific landscape feature.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of the application site.

Members' attention is drawn to temporary consent granted in September 2000 to enlarge existing car park (Newcroft) by 69 spaces, formation of new car park (Laidlaw House) 20 spaces, associated land modelling and lighting with that consent expiring on 30 September 2003. The consent was subject of a legal agreement requiring the Health Authority to produce a transport strategy requiring the carrying out of a travel survey and the production of a green travel plan, etc. Members are further advised that the use of the above mentioned car parking spaces have been unauthorised since 30 September 2003. An application has recently been received seeking consent for a further 12 month temporary consent with that request being in order to enable time to fully implement the various clauses within the legal agreement with particular reference to the completion of the green travel plan.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for one larger block orientated from south west to north east across the site and a smaller block orientated at right angles to the larger block from the north west to the south east. The larger block is in the form of four linked staggered blocks, four storeys in height with one of the blocks being five storeys at the south western end. Each block type is based on the same module containing residential units of four en-suite bedrooms arranged as a flat with each floor providing a shared kitchen, living space arranged around a staircase and in the case of the five storey unit, arranged around a lift core. The smaller block is four storeys in height containing a similar module. All blocks include communal storage facilities, level access to all ground floor accommodation and has W.C. accommodation onto each staircase.

Blocks to be finished in buff facing brick as the predominant brick finish with a plinth of red brick under a shallow pitched roof clad in aluminium insulated roofsheets.

The two proposed blocks along with the existing Margham House are arranged to encompass a hard and soft landscape community area which includes randomly located cycle parking provision. General access of the site is via the existing car park but does allow an access road narrowing to 3.7 metres ending 20 metres from the adjacent parking area to allow reversing distances for fire appliances etc. Proposal will result in the loss of some of the existing parking provision within the area.

Application has been accompanied by a design criteria statement with the basic considerations as follows:

The building is first and foremost to provide the much needed work type specific accommodation.

The layout within the site allows the inclusion of the existing Margham House as part of a horseshoe development of accommodation surrounding communal amenity space.

The siting of the building to form this enclosed area increases the amenity to the existing residents as well as providing provision for the new.

Siting of the building allows the development to make a statement while permitting the best views of the surroundings.

The larger of the two blocks orientated from south west to north east across the site has a layout of four staggered blocks. The block massings are generally of four storeys with a punctuation of a fifth storey block at the entrance to the site as a visual statement. The smaller block has a layout of two staggered units which act as an end stop to enclose the development using the slope of the site to settle lower in the ground. The blocks have been laid out to give a community sense to the accommodation and draw both the existing and proposed together grouped around the central amenity space.

The application has been accompanied by a brief drainage report which covers the following:

"Foul Water

The conventional gravity connection from the proposed units collated and discharging into manholes to the north and east of the development which lie on an existing 200mm diameter pitch fibre foul drain. The existing hydraulic load on this pipe is regarded as low since it collects from the kitchens and pathology unit.

The existing pipe discharges to the public foul sewer at Dodnor Lane some 170m downstream from where it passes to the Dodnor Lane pumping station. The contribution to foul flows is estimated to be 0.7 litres per second (based upon 100 litres per head per day).

Surface Water

The proposal is to locate the new buildings on an area currently occupied by a surface level car park and a tennis court. This area is currently positively drained to the surface water network of the hospital via a 300mm diameter drain running to the south.

It is proposed to connect the roof water runoff to this existing surface water network in lieu of the car park runoff currently discharging to it. There will be no nett change in the surface water runoff from this area of the hospital."

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:

Meeting housing requirements for the whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

Create mores sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities etc.

Delivery of affordable housing is a major material consideration in respect of housing development. Objectives should be to ensure that affordable housing secured will contribute to satisfying local housing need as demonstrated by a vigorous assessment.

Any such housing need, taking in account needs of specific groups, including the needs of key workers.

Reference is also made to a consultation document of February 2003 in respect of possible changes to PPG3 which seeks the views on a number of issues emphasising that "affordable housing shall be defined in terms of the relationship between local income groups and house prices or rents for different types and sizes of housing and in terms of housing for identified groups such as key workers."

In terms of local plan policies the following applies:

The recent housing needs survey although not specifically identifying a need for key worker homes did conclude that there is a demand for rented accommodation with a large proportion of that demand being for single person accommodation.

Specific policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelope for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements

H6 - High Density Residential Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

TR6 - Cycling and Walking

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

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

Site is located within parking zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates the maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision on this site.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Southern Water comment as follows:

"As you say there have been problems with sewer capacity in the Parkhurst area that has delayed the development of housing on the prison estate. This is mainly due to the unsatisfactory overflow at Prior Crescent that has caused flooding near a number of houses. I can inform you that improvement works are expected to be implemented within the next year to solve this problem.

However the drainage from the development in this application does not go through Prior Crescent. The sewer runs through Dodnor Industrial Estate. These sewers have sufficient capacity for the development, as there are no flooding problems in this area at the moment. The discharge from the new development is only small in relation to the existing flow in the sewers.

Southern Water does not have any surface water sewers in the area. The brief report refers to surface water sewers in the area. If these surface water sewers discharge to a watercourse then we would have no objection. We want as much surface water removed from the foul/combined sewer as this causes flooding in periods of rain."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Member, Councillor Price, has expressed concerns regarding the impact this proposal may have on existing sewer systems.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Principle

This application represents the first of its type in respect of a development for specific key worker accommodation. Members will note that PPG3 makes a passing reference to key workers being one of a number of specific groups which should be catered for in terms of affordable housing needs. Research has failed to find a specific definition of a key worker, however there is no doubt that personnel employed by Health Authorities, particular reference to nurses, doctors, etc would fall into such a classification.

Applicants specifically state that:

"The development is designed to provide accommodation for key workers; those employed directly to fulfill the personnel requirements of the site. This is generally on relatively short term basis to cater to the immediate needs of the incoming workforce."

Furthermore they state:

"The need for accommodation of specific medical professionals is well known and this development sets out to address the issue of housing the specific workforce in the location where they are critically needed."

The question of how this proposal sits with general affordable housing policies, bearing in mind that it seeks consent for one hundred units needs to be considered. Firstly it should be noted that the applicants in this case is a registered social landlord, i.e. a housing association and it is my understanding that they will be managing the development with the Health Trust having primary nomination rights in respect of personnel as described above. Members will note that occupancy of these properties will be on a relatively short term basis, a further indicator that the properties will be occupied by medical and health care employees who would in any event be unable to afford housing on the open market, whether to rent or buy. I am therefore satisfied that since the objective of a registered social landlord would be to provide social, rented or affordable housing, this type of key worker accommodation falls within this definition and therefore effectively is providing 100% affordable housing. Therefore I do not consider the affordable housing policies within the UDP apply in this case. Obviously I will suggest a specific condition restricting occupancy to key worker accommodation as generally described above.

Design, Arrangement and Massing

Applicants have deliberately promoted a modern approach given the site's location and its relationship to the main St Mary's Hospital complex. Whilst the main walls are to be constructed in brick, the type of brick is likely to reflect the modern clean lined approach and this coupled with the shallow pitched hipped roof finished in sheeted material with a very strong overhang, creates a very distinctive development which sits comfortably within the topography and relates well with existing surrounding buildings, particularly Margham House. The enclose effect being one of the main aims has, in my opinion, been achieved with the internal community area providing valuable amenity space and that importance sense of community and space for occupiers to enjoy.

Whilst the blocks themselves have a repetitious internal layout, the stepping and staggering of the units provides good visual relief and the introduction of the five storey block within the main block provides an important focal element and articulates the block effectively.

Drainage

Applicants were advised that the site was in an area where there are known drainage capacity problems and therefore Members will note that the application has been accompanied by a statement prepared by consulting engineers. The comments of Southern Water are self-explanatory and clearly indicate that fortunately in terms of this site Southern Water are satisfied that there is sufficient capacity to accept this development without impacting on capacities within existing systems.

Similarly with regard to surface water this proposal effectively will not make the situation any worse and if anything is likely to improve the situation in terms of introduction of porous surfaces.

Parking and Cycle Provision

Members will note the proposal involves the loss of some of the existing parking provision in this area with the remaining area being retained subject to some additional landscaping. It is important to appreciate that these parking spaces are not for use of the occupiers of this proposed development for it is anticipated that the majority of such occupiers will be non-car owning. In this regard I refer to the planning history where reference was made to the green travel plan and all the issues relating to car parking provision within St Mary's complex. I am satisfied that this proposal will have little or no impact on car parking strategy although the Hospital Trust would need to take into account the slight reduction in parking spaces caused by this development in their overall assessment of availability of parking spaces. I consider that this application can be processed in the absence of that green travel plan.

In terms of cycle provision, application clearly indicates strategically sited cycle parking provision which satisfies the relative policy.

General

It is important to appreciate that the fact that this proposal has come forward at this time, with particular reference to the level and number of units being provided reflects a demand for this type of occupation which will enable the Health Authority to attract staff more readily. Also the location of this level of accommodation within the hospital grounds certainly satisfies sustainability policies. Also in this location access to Newport is relatively convenient.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, it is considered that this is an important application being the first of its kind on the Island for substantial accommodation for key workers and I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal being satisfied that all issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The development hereby approved shall be occupied only be a person or persons solely or mainly in the employ of the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust and shall not be occupied by any other person(s) without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The occupancy of the development hereby approved shall be managed by a Registered Social Landlord (Housing Association).

Reason: The development is inappropriately located to be occupied permanently and to ensure the units satisfy a need for Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust key workers in compliance with the objectives of PPG3 - Housing in respect of providing housing for specific groups.

None of the units shall be occupied until foul and surface water drainage schemes have been implemented in accordance with details indicated in letter dated 16 December 2003 from Messrs Anthony Ward Partnership Ltd.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed number/densities, an implementation and future maintenance programme, colour and texture of hard surfaces, including drainage.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/11434/P/S/24519 Alleged breach of planning control regarding

protection of trees, Copse End, Sandown, Isle of Wight

Officer: S Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823592

Summary

To consider a complaint alleging breach of a planning condition regarding protection of trees and if a clear breach has taken place how the Local Planning Authority should respond.

Background

Copse End is a residential development estate accessed off Perowne Way at Sandown. When conditional planning permission was approved in 1989 condition 3 stated “Those trees not directly affected by the proposed development shall be retained and shall not be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dieing or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as maybe agreed with the Local Planning Authority. “

Condition 6 stated “No trees on the site on the date of this permission shall be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dieing or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as maybe agreed with the Local Planning Authority.”

The reason for condition 3 was “To screen the site and protect the appearance and character of the area,” and the reason for condition 6 was “To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained on the site”.

A complaint has recently been received alleging that works have been undertaken to trees on this site in contravention of these conditions. Clarification with the complainant has alleged that the works have taken place within a copse area that is located in the north west corner of the estate.

Discussions with adjoining property owners and visits to the site have revealed the following information.

The land in question is owned by the occupants of 6 Copse End who purchased the site in the middle of 2003.

Prior to this date the owners of numbers 6 and 7 Copse End leased this land from the owner.

The land owned by the occupant of number 6 includes no just the area in the north east corner of the estate but also a narrow tract of land running down the western boundary of the estate behind the residential properties.

The public footpath which runs between numbers 6 and 7 Copse End goes through the copse area before negotiating the river via a bridge.

The route of the public footpath was recently moved onto what was considered to be the correct route with the works undertaken by the Council’s Rights of Way Section. This work did involve the removal of any vegetation and trees obstructing the correct alignment. The previous route has been left to revert back to nature.

The owner of 7 Copse End has not incorporated any of the land into their domestic garden but is simply using a short narrow strip as a buffer between the route of the footpath and his private garden area.

The owner of 6 Copse End has not incorporated any of the area in their domestic garden but is seeking to manage the copse and has been clearing and stacking dead wood. There are no signs of any large tree having been felled within this area.

Immediately at the rear boundary of number 6 a number of Elm trees have been pollarded some three years ago leaving them at a height of some 2 – 3 metres. The ivy growth on these remaining stems is indicative that the trees were either in distress or had already died.

Records do not reveal that any of the trees covered within the area identified by the complainant are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The Local Planning Authority is aware of a number of requests seeking approval to reduce or fell trees bounding the river and the field to the west and it is my understanding that once these request had been made the responses have tended to be positive.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

To note the contents of this report but to indicate to all relevant parties that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the relevant conditions of TCP/11434/P have not been breached and that the investigation is closed.

That the Local Planning Authority writes to the individual identified as the owner of the land under investigation encouraging him to initiate a strategy for the future management of this woodland and giving him guidance where such advice could be obtained.

That the Local Planning Authority writes to the owner of the woodland indicating that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority works have been undertaken in the identified area to the degree that a breach of the planning conditions of TCP/11434/P has taken place and formally request that a tree replacement scheme be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 8 weeks to be implemented within a timescale identified in the submitted documents.

That the Local Planning Authority write to the individual property owners backing onto the river and the field to the west alerting them to the existence of the planning conditions and the implications if they propose to initiate any work on trees at the bottom of their gardens.

Conclusion

Trees identified as having a more significant public amenity value are covered by Tree Preservation Orders but other trees can be considered to justify protection and this has normally been achieved through the imposition of a planning condition. The residential development of Copse End is such an estate where this condition appears to have been used to protect trees on the edge of a development. In essence, the owner of any tree is required to seek the written consent of the Local Planning Authority before undertaking works and if appropriate such an agreement would include the replacement of any lost tree. Records indicate that the Local Planning Authority has responded positively to such requests. Within the copse area itself I can find no evidence to indicate that recent tree felling has taken place and would attribute the open area which can be identified in the centre of the copse to be the former route of the footpath which is now been abandoned. Those works associated with the reinstatement of the footpath along its current route were undertaken by the Rights of Way Section and as such would not be covered by the condition.

The owner of number 6 Copse End did commission work to a number of Elm trees some three years ago and has indicated that this followed the agreement of the Local Planning Authority. At the present time I am unable to confirm this. However, on the basis that the trees were dead I believe agreement would have been forthcoming if it were required at all.

Overall, having considered all the relevant factors I do not consider that a breach of the planning condition has taken place to the degree that the Local Planning Authority should initiate any action and this is reflected in the recommendation below. I am also proposing that for the avoidance of any future doubt the residents of the periphery of the estate which is the western and northern boundaries are written to advising them of the existence of the conditions and also to offer the recent purchaser of the copse land some guidance as to where he may seek appropriate advice as to its future management.

In coming to the recommendation not to take any Enforcement action with regards to the alleged breach of planning conditions the Local Planning Authority has given consideration 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. It is recognised that the existing planning conditions do have some degree of interference with the owners human rights but this is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the community as expressed through the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and through the original planning conditions which we imposed when the estate was first granted permission. The recommendation as outlined below are considered to be a proportionate response to the current situation and it is hoped go some way to both maintain and enhance the visual amenity of the area by encouraging the proper management of the copse. The action also seeks to eliminate any further confusion should the appropriate residents of the estate be unaware of the planning conditions.

Recommendation

1. To note the contents of this report but to indicate to all relevant parties that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the relevant conditions of TCP/11434/P have not been breached and that the investigation is closed.

2. That the Local Planning Authority writes to the individual identified as the owner of the land under investigation encouraging him to initiate a strategy for the future management of this woodland and giving him guidance where such advice could be obtained.

4. That the Local Planning Authority write to the individual property owners backing onto the river and the field to the west alerting them to the existence of the planning conditions and the implications if they propose to initiate any work on trees at the bottom of their gardens.

(b) TCP/13520/N Construction of 12 detached houses, (AORM,) land at St Cross Business Park, South of Lower St Cross Farm, Dodnor Lane, Newport

Officer: Mrs H Byrne Tel: (01983) 823569

Summary

To consider whether the Local Planning Authority should not seek compliance with the planning condition prohibiting the use of Dodnor Lane by construction traffic, during the building of the final four houses on this site.

Background

Planning permission was granted in July 2003 for the construction of 12 detached houses with garages and access road, land at St. Cross Business Park, Dodnor Lane. Condition seven stated:

‘All construction traffic shall enter and leave the site via Monks Brook

and not by way of Dodnor Lane to the west of the site.’

The reason for the imposition of this condition is in the interest of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway considerations for new development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Most of the properties have now been built, and apart from the odd exception beyond the developers control, the above condition has been complied with. The developer has recently written to the Enforcement section of the Local Planning Authority requesting that this condition be ‘relaxed’ as access to build the final four plots, numbers 1 to 4 that front onto Dodnor Lane, would be difficult without the use of the lane, due to the layout of the site.

Circular 11/95, (Section 71) on the use of planning conditions states that ;

‘Planning conditions are not an appropriate means of controlling the right of passage over public highways. Such conditions are likely to be very difficult to enforce effectively. It may be possible to encourage drivers to follow preferred routes by posting site notices to that effect. But where it is essential to prevent traffic from using particular routes, the correct mechanism for doing so is an Order under either section 1 or section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.’

This questions the use of this condition in the first place as conditions should only be imposed if they are both necessary and reasonable as well as enforceable.

To the north of the site in question, is a former farm yard which is used by the developer as a contractor’s depot for the storage of construction vehicles and materials. The only means of access to this depot is along Dodnor Lane and consequently construction traffic is already using the road and they have an impact on Dodnor Lane with regards to wear and tear on it.

Dodnor Lane is an adopted road, however it is narrow with ditches either side and although metalled is subject to a number of pot holes which could be exacerbated by additional construction vehicles. There is however a section 106 agreement in place ensuring that the developer carries out repairs to Dodnor Lane following completion of the development.

The following policies are considered to apply:

TR7 Highway considerations for new development

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To invite a formal planning application for the removal of the condition so that the implications of the use of Dodnor Lane by construction traffic can be examined more fully.

2. To indicate that the Local Planning Authority will not enforce condition 7 of TCP/13520N regarding the use of Dodnor Lane by construction traffic relating to the development of plots 1-4 of this site.

Conclusion

The developer has taken the responsible approach in that they have sought to use Dodnor Lane as an access to the site, as opposed to just ‘going ahead’ in breach of the condition. In view of the fact that the original condition may be unenforceable, as it fails some of the tests, coupled with the Section 106 agreement ensuring that repairs will be carried out to Dodnor Lane following completion of the development, there appears to be no valid reason not to seek to accommodate the developers request.

If Members support the basic principle, the developer could be invited to make an application to remove the condition, which given the timescale involved will not be determined until after work has started. Alternatively the Local Planning Authority could exercise it’s discretion and indicate that it would not enforce against any breach of the condition. In the circumstances I propose to recommend the latter course of action.

Although for the few residents in Dodnor Lane there may be some inconvenience with regards to the condition of the road, this should be relatively minor and short-lived.

Human Rights

The impact that the use of Dodnor Lane by construction traffic will have on the residents of Dodnor Lane and any other third party have been carefully considered. In coming to the decision not to enforce against any breach of the condition regarding the use of Dodnor Lane, 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. Whilst there may be some interference with the right of local residents and other third parties, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicants to develop the land in the manner previously approved by this Authority. It is considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

2. To indicate that the Local Planning Authority will not enforce condition 7 of TCP/13520N regarding the use of Dodnor Lane by construction traffic relating to the development of plots 1-4 of this site.

(c) TCP/20576/D Unauthorised change of use to builders store at Westmill, Carisbrooke Road, Newport.

Officer: Mr Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use as a builders store of loft space above domestic garages at Westmill, Carisbrooke Road, Newport, Isle of Wight.

Background

During the latter part of 2003 a report was received to the effect that the loft space above a garage, which is part of the garage block, serving the residents of Westmill, Carisbrooke Road, Newport, was being used to store plumbing and building materials and commercial deliveries were being made there.

The site lies behind the properties on the north side of Carisbrooke Road and is accessed via an unmade track running alongside number 120. The track broadens out at the rear into a gravelled area with the converted mill and a pair of semis (numbers 116 and 118) on its northern side with the garage block the subject of this report sitting on the eastern boundary.

To gain access to the loft area, scaffolding and a timber staircase have been erected against the gable end (north) and in close proximity to an adjacent residential property (no. 116). Building materials are also being stored in the opening beneath the above-mentioned scaffolding.

In November 2003 following enquiries to trace the person using the loft space, the manager of the letting agency in respect of Westmill phoned the Enforcement Officer and provided details of the lessee of the loft space.

A Planning Contravention Notice was sent to the lessee who completed and returned it. He stated that the loft space which he rents on a monthly agreement, is being used as a temporary store following a divorce which cost him his home, garage and workshop.

A further more detailed examination of the contents in the loft space will be carried out by the Enforcement Officer when the lessee returns from holiday in February 2004, but this is an inappropriate use in this residential location and in order to lay down a timescale for the cessation of the use I feel that Committee consent should be put in place for the service of an Enforcement Notice should the lessee not decide to cease the use of his own volition.

This unauthorised use is unacceptable and in breach of the following policies:

Policy D1 because it detracts from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and adversely affects the visual amenities of occupiers of the same site.

Policy D10 in that there is conflict between the existing premises and the activities which are now being undertaken and;

Policy TR7. There are highway safety concerns with commercial vehicles in the narrow access into the property and accessing from a narrow access onto a very busy classified road.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. The service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the loft space for storage of plumbing/builders materials and other commercial use and removal of all associated items including the timber staircase and scaffolding structure. Time for compliance one month from when the notice takes effect.

2. To note the situation outlined in this report and to invite without prejudice to the final decision a planning application for the retention of the use of the loft space for storage of builders/plumbing materials with a request that any application be submitted within one month.

3. To take no action regarding the storage of materials at Westmill.

Conclusion

The proximity of the site to adjoining residential properties is such that a commercial use is considered inappropriate and would be contrary to the above policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Accordingly, I believe that the most appropriate response at this time would be to authorise the service of an Enforcement Notice which could then be relied on should the meeting between the operator and officers in February not produce the desired outcome.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice 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; it is recognised that the Enforcement action will be an interference with the lessee’s human rights but this has to be balanced against the human rights of others. The action is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

The service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the loft space for storage of plumbing/builders materials and other commercial use and removal of all associated items including the timber staircase and scaffolding structure. Time for compliance one month from when the notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services