PAPER B2

 

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/25572/A

Mr & Mrs D Gallop against refusal for demolition of garage and storage buildings; construction of two extensions to enlarge accommodation, Temperance Cottage, Whitely Bank, Ventnor

 

 

TCP/25248/A

Mr B Button against refusal for first floor extension, 36 Warwick Street, Ryde

 

 

 

 

E/24579/B

Mr G W Blake against Enforcement Notice relating to division of storage building to preparation of fish and shellfish space at Blakes Boat House, The Esplanade, Ventnor

 

 

LBC/21034/H

 

 

 

TCP/15212/C

 

Dr J A Parsons against refusal of Listed Building consent for the retention of UPVC windows and doors at West Billingham Farm, Billingham, Shorwell

 

Mr R & Mrs S Holmes against refusal for alterations and extensions and balcony at South View Grange, Bagwich Lane, Godshill

 

 

E/24032/C

Mr J Hobson against Enforcement Notice relating to failure to comply with condition requiring removal of shipping containers at Helens Copse, Gate Lane, Freshwater

 

2.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

No new dates to report

 

 

 

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/25361

Mr M Darch against refusal of outline for a house on land rear of 7 Upper Hyde Lane,  Shanklin

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 7 March 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 22 December 2003

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing and future residents in terms of outlook and privacy.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The site is not a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage and the proposal therefore conflicts  with Policy  H9.

 

 

·         The location of the site forward of the building line is such that the house would be visually intrusive and out of character with the surrounding pattern of development.                  

      

 

·         The house would be poorly related to other properties of the immediate area because of the small size of the plot and lack of depth. 

 

 

·         The proposal would harm the character and appearance the area and is contrary to policies D1, G4 and G5.

 

 

·         Even a small house would result in a loss of outlook from nearby houses facing the site and there would be some mutual overlooking.

 

 

·         There is a significant risk of harm to the living condition of existing and future residents, contrary to Policy D1.

 

 

 

 

 

(b)

TCP/8182/H

Mr & Mrs F Troisi against refusal of outline for a dwelling on land rear of The Mount, Shanklin Road, Sandford, Godshill.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 21 March 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 13 January 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character of the countryside having regard to relevant planning policies.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The site has an open character and setting within the countryside and is not a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or a group of houses.

 

 

·         The proposal does not amount to acceptable infilling and conflicts with Policy H9.

 

 

·         The development would result in the outward spread of low density development and would significantly harm the character of the countryside, contrary to policies G1 and G2.

 

 

·         The development would not result in a precedent for similar development at the rear of the adjoining properties as those sites are different with considerably less land than the appeal site.             .

 

 

 

 

 

(c)

TCP/25621

Mr J Foreman against refusal for alterations, first floor and two storey extensions to enlarge garage and provide additional living accommodation at 3 Moon Close, East Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 10 July 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 14 January 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The introduction of an additional storey and gable in front of the main bulk of the house would be out scale with the existing house and unbalance its simple form.    

 

 

·         The extension would not be sympathetic in either scale or form to the existing development in the street.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal would not be unacceptable when viewed from the rear but this is significantly outweighed by the unacceptable impact on the front of the house and the street scene.

 

 

·         The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the immediate area, contrary to policies G4, D1 and H7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d)

TCP/25352

Mr and Mrs D Thomas against refusal for conservatory  and a single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at 14 Glendale Close, Wootton.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 31 March 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 15 January 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The site is in a close of detached properties characterised by an attractive sense of space about and a sylvan background.

 

 

·         The proposed extension would nearly double the frontage width of the existing house and would appear very wide and bulky.      .

 

 

·         The development would be visually obtrusive and would reduce the distinctive sense of spaciousness within the close and partly obscure the view of the trees beyond.

 

 

·         The excessive size and scale would harm the setting of the existing dwelling and be contrary to Policy H7.

 

 

·         The proposal conservatory is a simple projecting wing at the rear and would not be harmful.

 

 

·         The development would result in the loss of trees protected by a TPO which          would cause significant harm to the attractive sylvan setting of the site and detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

 

 

 

 

(e)

TCP/13631/B

The Eaton Partnership against refusal for a two storey building of five flats with vehicular access at land adjacent      17 – 18 Winchester Close, Newport.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 10 March 2003

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 15 January 2004

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the setting of the nearby Listed buildings.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The principle of development on this site is not in dispute.

 

·         The proposed development is larger than most of the other properties in the close and its proposed height, shape and dominant roof would result in a visually intrusive form of development which would not be sympathetic to the character of the street scene.

 

·         The proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Listed building which occupies a prominent corner position.

 

·         The uncharacteristic roof form and the overall height and bulky appearance of the proposal would also detract from the character and appearance of the Listed building. 

 

·         The development would be an intrusive feature in the street scene and would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy D1 and have an adverse effect on the setting of the Listed building, contrary to Policy B2.

 

 

 

 

(f)

TCP/25314/A

Mr P Hart and Ms L Taylor against refusal for the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding at 2 Old School Court, Appledurcombe Road, Wroxall.                    

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 07 May 2003

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 20 January 2004

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The effect of the proposal on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on St. John’s Road (B3327)

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The road carries considerable flows of traffic and although a 30 mph speed limit applies neither the layout of the highway or the general traffic conditions would         necessarily contain vehicle speeds to that limit.

 

·         The proposal is not a case where a reduction in the wide distance from 90 metres to 60 metres would be justified.

 

·         On-street parking that occurs in St. Johns Road has the effect of directing oncoming vehicles out from the kerb and increases visibility but this cannot be relied upon at all times.

 

·         The visibility to the south would be deficient to a significant degree and the proposal would be likely to create conditions that could significantly reduce the safety and free flow of traffic, contrary to Policy TR7.

 

 

 

 

(g)

TCP/24977

Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society against refusal of outline for a two storey building comprising twelve elderly persons units, 24 – bed nursing home and associated facilities on land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde.  

 

           TCP/24977/A

Abbeyfield Isle of Wight Extra Care Society against refusal of outline for 36-bed nursing home on land between Grasmere Avenue and Thornton Close, Appley Road, Ryde.

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

Committee Decisions:

Refusal (both applications)

 

Refusal (both applications) – 10 December 2002 and 22     July 2003

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed (both appeals) – 22 January 2004

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the development would harm the character and appearance of the area.

 

·         Whether the development would result in the harmful loss of the best agricultural land.

 

·         Whether the development would be unduly reliant on the private car for access.

 

·         Whether the development would suffer unacceptably from noise or fumes from adjoining industry.

 

·         Whether material considerations, such as need and lack of alternative sites, outweigh any harm and conflict with the Development Plan.

 

 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The width of the frontage and the agricultural use of the field make the appeal site unmistakably part of the countryside.

 

·         The proposed substantial building and associated parking and access would mean the appeal site no longer appeared as part of the countryside.

 

·         The semi-rural character of the area, to which the site makes an important contribution, would be eroded.

 

·         The scale of the potential impact could be reduced by sensitive and extensive new planting but irrespective of such amelioration the development would conflict with policies S4 and C1.

 

·         There would be no conflict with Policy G2 since the development would represent an extension of the built up area of Ryde rather than consolidation of dispersed development.

 

·         The site is Grade 2 agricultural land and PPG7 would expect proposed development to use areas of poor quality agricultural land.

 

·         The loss of this land would be unlikely to make a material difference to the present farming operations at Westridge Farm but the aims of advice in PPG7 is to protect such land as a long term national resource so it remains for future use.

 

·         The loss to development of 1.6 hectares of Grade 2 agricultural land is a material objection as the proposal does not minimise the amount of land to be lost.

 

·         The site is substantially greater than is needed to accommodate the proposed building, car parking, amenity area and landscaping.

 

·         Considerations of accessibility of the site relate primarily to visitors and staff.

 

·         Staff would be likely to arrive and depart by various modes of transport, professional visitors would be likely to arrive by car wherever the site was located and other visitors could make use of a good bus service.

 

·         A Green Travel Plan would ensure steps were taken to facilitate and encourage access to the site other than by private car and subject to such a condition there would be no unacceptable dependence on the private car for access or conflict with PPG13 or policies S11 and TR3.

 

·         The nearby industrial premises at Trucast had been the source of problems in the past but recent investment had significantly reduced emissions and planning permission for housing on land previously part of the Trucast site had recently been granted.

 

·         The proximity of the appeal site to industrial premises would not make the living conditions of future residents unacceptable.

 

·         There is an urgent need for the provision or replacement and additional nursing beds in the Ryde, Seaview and Nettlestone area and the need for this type of accommodation weighs substantially in the favour of the appeal schemes.

 

·         The appeals are primarily for the provision of care and the proposals are therefore distinct from the provision of affordable housing referred to in Circular 6/98.   

 

·         The twelve very sheltered units in appeal A would be an integral part of a single building, the greater part of which would be providing nursing care, and it would not be appropriate to separate that element in planning terms.

 

·         The UDP policies for the provision of affordable housing are therefore not directly applicable.

 

·         Given their funding arrangements, the appellants would not be in a position to pay full residential value for land and this position is analogous to the circumstances in which affordable housing is normally secured.

 

·         A site with a residential allocation or otherwise suitable for residential development is not going to be affordable to the appellant on the open market and affordability appears to be the greatest constraint on the availability of alternative sites within the urban area.

 

·         It is unlikely the appellants would be able to proceed with the development on an alternative site which was clearly preferable in planning terms.

 

·         The appeal proposals are compliant with the wording of Policy U1 and its text and it follows that compliance with Policy U1 must mean compliance with Policy G1.

 

Inspector’s Summing Up:

 

·         There are substantial planning objections to the proposals which would harm the semi-rural character of the area and result in the loss of 1.6 hectares of the best agricultural land.

 

·         Such objections would normally readily justify dismissal of the appeals but there are matters which need to be weighed in favour of the proposals.

 

·         There is an urgent need for the specialist accommodation proposed.

 

·         The funding constraints imposed upon the appellants would mean they would not be able to develop the accommodation proposed unless land is secured well below normal residential value.

 

·         There are no alternatives available to the appellants and the site is well placed to conveniently serve the intended client group.

 

·         All the circumstances and compliance with Policy U1 are sufficient to justify using a site outside the development envelope and weigh substantially in favour.

 

·         Planning objections and the justification for the appeals are finely balanced but the schemes do not make efficient use of a greenfield site which is also the best agricultural land.

 

·         The whole of the site is not needed to achieve the development proposed and the possible future need of the appellants to utilise all the site is too tenuous to carry much weight.

 

·         The whole site is not needed to minimise the visual impact of the development.

 

·         The unnecessary loss of the best agricultural land tips the balance against the appeal schemes.

 

 

 

 

 

(h)

TCP/12323/M

Mr & Mrs P J Colson against refusal of outline for a dwelling and vehicular access at land adjoining Hillcroft Turf Supplies Yard, East Lane, Merstone.                  

 

Officer Recommendation:

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal

 

Refusal (Part 1) – 6 December 2002

 

Appeal Decision:

 

Dismissed – 22 January 2004

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the arguments in favour of the proposed development are adequate to allow an exception to national and local policies that resist new housing development in the countryside.

 

·         The proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the countryside.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         Whilst it would be convenient for the appellants to live closer to the land where the turf is grown, a permanent dwelling on the site itself is not essential for this purpose.

 

·         There is scope to improve on-site security arrangements without the provision of a permanent dwelling.

 

·         Staffing of the yard during opening hours could be addressed by locating an office within one of the existing buildings.

 

·         The functional need for the dwelling has not been demonstrated.

 

·         The arguments in support of the proposal are not adequate to justify an exception to national and local policies which resist new housing development in the countryside.

 

·         The construction of a bungalow on this site would damage the area’s generally undeveloped rural character and be contrary to PPG7, G4 and G5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.