PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE B TUESDAY 10 JUNE 2003

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT 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 B 10 JUNE 2003

ITEM

NO.

APPLICATION DETAILS

PARISH

OFFICER=S RECOMMENDATION

TCP/01800/K P/01872/01

Metropole Hotel, Esplanade,

Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1JS

Ventnor

Approval

TCP/05548/G P/00101/03

former garage premises, South Street,

Ventnor, Isle of Wight

Ventnor

Approval

TCP/06661/N P/00800/03

The Shipyard, Ashlake Copse Road,

Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 4EY

Fishbourne

Approval

TCP/09682/E P/00267/03

Fernhill House, Fernhill,

Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 4QX

Wootton

Refusal

TCP/11594/Y P/00634/02

Heathfield House, Heathfield Road,

Freshwater, Isle of Wight

Freshwater

Approval

TCP/21651/B P/00209/03

Hermitage Court Farm,

Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 2PJ

Niton

Refusal

TCP/22128/B P/01117/02

land north of Newport C of E Primary School, Kitbridge Road and south of, Petticoat Lane, Newport, Isle of Wight

Newport

Approval

TCP/22975/D P/00573/03

Christian Meeting Room, Buckbury Lane, Newport, Isle of Wight

Newport

Approval

TCP/24597/B P/01856/02

The Boat House 65, Marsh Road,

Cowes, Isle of Wight

Gurnard

Approval

10.

TCP/25508 P/00628/03

land opposite Gore Cemetery south west of Arreton Cross, Downend Road,

Newport, Isle of Wight

Arreton

Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE B 10 JUNE 2003

(a) TCP/25516 14 Winston Road Cowes

TCP/01800/K P/01872/01 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 12/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Deluxelarge Ltd

Demolition of building; construction of 4/5/6 storey building to form 14 flats, 8 holiday flats, restaurant with conservatory and parking facilities (revised plans)

Metropole Hotel, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JS

This application was reported to the Committee at the meeting held on 16 July 2002 at which time Members were asked to give an indication as to whether loss of the hotel and principle of its replacement with a mixed use development as proposed was acceptable in order to give applicant some comfort prior to incurring expense of subsurface investigation study in order to satisfy requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 14. Following consideration of the matter, it was resolved that the applicant should be advised that proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and that the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the building are acceptable, subject to Members being satisfied with regard to the outstanding matters as follows:

1. Financial justification for the level of tourism accommodation to be provided within the development.

2. Information regarding capacity of the drainage system in the area to enable the Authority to assess its adequacy to serve the proposed development.

3. Submission of development costs associated with the proposal to assure the Local Planning Authority that potential benefits to the area in terms of tourism and the tidying up of the site justify setting aside policy requirements to provide affordable housing.

4. Submission of further information in respect of ground stability as recommended by the Principal Building Control Surveyor.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application. The processing of this application has taken 82 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit due to delays awaiting further information in respect of proposal, including details of subsurface investigations and a financial appraisal of the scheme.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to the Metropole Hotel which occupies prominent site on corner of Ventnor Esplanade and Esplanade Road. Property is three/four storeys in height and is considered to be one of the most substantial and prominent buildings on the Esplanade. Lane to rear of property and Esplanade Road, which runs along eastern boundary of site, rises steeply. Property was previously used as an hotel but is now vacant and has fallen into state of disrepair.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Number of applications have previously been approved for development in connection with use of property as an hotel, including additional fire escape in 1975, creation of sauna in 1978 and change of use from cocktail bar to casino which was granted permission for limited period in 1985 and expired December 1991.

Most recent application, refused in July 2001, sought outline planning permission for redevelopment of the site for 22 flats with car parking and formation of new vehicular access. With exception of siting and access, all other detailed matters were reserved for subsequent approval. Application was accompanied by a site layout plan and an illustrative elevation plan giving indication of scale and mass of proposed building in relation to the existing hotel premises. Permission was refused for reasons relating to loss of hotel accommodation, impact of the proposed building on the character of the surrounding area and on grounds that proposed access to Esplanade and Esplanade Road were unsatisfactory to serve the development by reason of inadequate visibility.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves demolition of the existing hotel building and erection on the site of a four, five and six storey building with basement car parking providing a mix of accommodation, including a restaurant and total of 22 flats, a number of which would be for occupation as holiday accommodation only. In this respect, original submission involved provision of six holiday flats and sixteen permanent residential flats. Following discussions with applicants agent, number of holiday flats to be provided was increased from six to eight, reducing the number of permanent residential flats from sixteen to fourteen.

Car parking would be provided for most part within basement parking area with small number of spaces to rear of building, all of which would be accessed from Esplanade Road.

Plans which form part of submission include elevation and street scene providing comparison between height, scale and mass of original hotel premises and the proposed building. These plans indicate that proposed building is of a similar scale and mass to the existing hotel premises and would be of similar height or lower, with exception of element on corner of Esplanade and Esplanade Road which would project a maximum of approximately 1.5 metres above height of original building. Whilst a similar height to original building, lower ceiling levels to be provided within accommodation facilitates increased number of storeys.

Application was accompanied by a report on ground stability issues associated with the development. The following extracts are taken from the conclusion and recommendations in the report:

"As it would appear to be impracticable to provide a sufficient factor of safety against possible slips occurring under the site the alternative approach is to ensure that the proposed development will not be adversely affected by any slip that does occur. Whilst it is impossible to safeguard against any imaginable slip, in reality the movement that does occur in this locality does tend to be slow and of limited extent. Most of the buildings in the area, including the Metropole Hotel, being relatively unaffected even after 100 or 150 years. Even where larger movements have occurred, as at the other end of the Esplanade, these have been less than a metre. According to Chandler, checks on the benchmarks in the area over the past 100 years have revealed upward movements up to 3.5 mm per year at the other end of the Esplanade and downward movements of up to 4 mm per year in Church Street...."

The engineer also concludes that:

"Whilst high, it is possible to design the proposed building in such a way as to be able to cope with this amount of movement without damage. If the building is split up into relatively square units with a structural gap between and the basement and superstructure are designed as rigid boxes with jacking points incorporated between so that the superstructure can be re-levelled at any time to take out any movement that does occur, there is no engineering reason why the development should not proceed. Care in the design would be required at each stage of demolition and construction to ensure that the present situation is not made worse. The services will also have to be flexibly connected to ensure that they are not disrupted by such movement".

The engineer who prepared the report recommended that a bore hole investigation will be required in due course to allow the detailed design of the proposed foundations. He considered that this should consist of at least three bore holes, one at each end of the site near the Esplanade and one to the centre rear of the site and that these should be taken to a depth of at least 20 metres. However, he expressed a view that, as the postulated slips are largely situated outside the site, only a widespread investigation extending up to Belgrave Road/Hamborough Road is likely to modify the conclusions reached in the report.

Application was also accompanied by information in support of the proposal entitled "Design Statement", a copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 - Tourism acknowledges that tourism makes a major contribution to the national economy and to the prosperity of many cities, towns and rural areas.

Site is shown on plans which accompany coastal land slip potential assessment to be within an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development. The Development Control Guidance indicates that a desk study and walkover survey will normally need to be followed by a ground investigation or geotechnical appraisal prior to lodging a planning application.

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

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

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brown field sites), rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.

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.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing.

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Area.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer initially commented that he would have preferred to see a foot way provided on the landward side of the Esplanade although he noted that there was very little difference between the proposed restaurant entrance and the existing hotel entrance and expressed a view that it would be difficult to raise an objection on these grounds. However, he considered that the car park access point onto Esplanade Road as detailed on the original plan, had extremely poor visibility and was very narrow with no entrance splays. Therefore, he recommended refusal on grounds that the access onto Esplanade Road was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable width and visibility. Furthermore, he commented that there is currently no parking within the application site and suggested it would be preferable to provide none in any redevelopment.

Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing an increase in the width of the access and an increased visibility splay. Following further consideration of the matter, Highway Engineer advised that, whilst an improvement on the original proposal, visibility would still be substandard although he would be prepared to accept it in this instance.

Principal Building Control Surveyor has carried out evaluation of the ground stability report which accompanied application and comments that, whilst the engineer expresses view that as the development is at the toe of the landslide system and the additional weight of the proposed structure compared with the existing building will improve the stability of the slope, he considers that the temporary stability of the slope as a result of demolishing the existing hotel needs to be considered, and in order to quantify this he advised that it would be necessary to carry out further subsurface investigations, as described in the engineer's report. In addition, he considered that the highway and adjoining ground will need to be supported, and details of this, together with a method statement indicating how ground stability will be maintained through all demolition and construction phases, should be submitted.

In terms of the impact to ground movement on the building, the Principal Building Control Surveyor advised that, with the anticipated magnitude of ground movement, the building will be subject to significant movement and this will be exaggerated due to the height of the structure. He noted that the engineer had acknowledged this fact and recommended incorporation of jacking points to re-level the structure when this becomes necessary. However, he was concerned as to how practical this will prove to be, particularly considering the proposed plan shape of the building, which would need to be subdivided with flexible joints between adjoining sections. Therefore, he requested submission of further details in this respect. Whilst further information was subsequently submitted, this did not include details of a subsurface investigation or sufficiently address temporary stability of the site during the demolition and construction phase so I and the Principal Building Control Surveyor are yet to be satisfied that recommendations contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 have been met.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer makes no adverse comment in respect of proposal and recommends condition, should Members be mindful to approve application, requiring satisfactory extract ventilation system to serve the kitchen of the proposed restaurant.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel who commented as follows:

Panel members were of the opinion that a drawing of the existing building would be extremely useful for comparison with the proposal.

The Panel were of the opinion that the articulation on the front of the building should be continued round the tower at the corner since this block would be viewed as a whole from the Esplanade due to the hill at the side and the vacant site across the other side of the road.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council comment that they would prefer to see a greater number of holiday flats within this development on the Esplanade.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Five letters were received, including one from Island Watch and one headed Ventnor Residents which was accompanied by a petition containing 83 signatures, copies of press articles/notices, extracts from engineer's report and extracts from the Isle of Wight Structure Plan, objecting to and/or expressing concern with regard to proposal and raising the following issues:

Traffic movements would cause congestion at entrance to Esplanade Road and increased noise and pollution - parking could be provided away from the site, possibly involving issue of permits by Council.

Proposal would exacerbate ground instability/heave.

Adequacy of sound proofing between flats and ventilation is questioned.

It is suggested that restaurant should be located on top floor - better location for restaurant and smell of cooking would not adversely affect residents of flats and adjacent buildings.

Increased number of large structures being built in small area.

Development should incorporate higher number of holiday flats - at least 80%.

Ground floor could be either banqueting suite or a casino.

Strong objection raised to the major residential use of site - important to keep for holiday use otherwise may affect economy of town.

Need for fewer flats in luxury - small flats at inexpensive end of market end up as social housing to detriment of the town.

Site within area identified on Ventnor Landslide Potential Assessment to be within area "likely to be subject to significant constraints on development - development of proposal should identify and take account of the ground behaviour constraints".

Area designated as Landslide Toe - questionable whether proposed building could be supported.

Some inaccuracies in engineer's report and general lack of information - no structural evidence that Metropole Hotel needs to be demolished - should be repaired.

Reference is made to policies of Structure Plan and South East Wight Local Plan and it is considered that policies H2, H3 and D1 of the UDP reinforce these policies.

Mass of building would have detrimental effect on Esplanade. Building out of scale with surrounding properties - particularly due to its height.

Proposed balcony is not in keeping with area.

Building shown to be approximately 15 metres high - it is understood that there is a 6 metre height restriction on new buildings on Esplanade in interest of amenity.

Ventnor has sufficient social housing and suffers related problems.

Adequacy of sewerage system is questioned.

Whilst raising concern with regard to proposed development, several objectors welcome demolition of the existing building which has become an eyesore.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The principle of the development and the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the building were dealt with when previously considering this matter. Therefore, only the outstanding issues detailed in the introductory paragraph of this report remain to be addressed.

Applicant's agent has submitted financial appraisal providing breakdown of the development costs and the gross development value of the completed development. This information has been considered by a Quantity Surveyor within the Council's Property Services Department who considered the figures to be generally acceptable subject to the information accurately reflecting the following issues:

The holiday units are for letting and not for sale as holiday homes without restriction.

Cost of piling seems expensive, but it is assumed that this is in line with the foundation designs.

Land value seems expensive.

With regard to the above points, I would confirm that should Members be minded to approve the application, it is intended to impose conditions on the planning permission requiring the holiday units to be retained in one ownership and restricting occupancy to holiday purposes only for a limited period during a calendar year. With regard to the second point, I am aware that cost of building in areas of known or potential ground stability and in particular in Ventnor, is generally higher due to the need for specially designed foundations. Applicant's agent has confirmed during a recent telephone conversation that the costings have been calculated following receipt of advice from their Geotechnical Engineer and are not merely a rough estimate. Similarly, applicant's agent has confirmed that the value of the land specified in the submitted information is the actual cost incurred by his client in purchasing the site.

Council's Quantity Surveyor advises that developers would normally be looking for at least a 20% and up to 40% return on their investment. In this instance, figures provided by the applicant's agent indicate that the return from this development would be 12.9% on Gross Domestic Value (GDV) and 14.9% on costs. Therefore, he considers that in its present format, the project is just viable but any further costs could jeopardise the scheme.

On the basis of the information provided and the consultations carried out, I am satisfied that any increase in the number of holiday flats which would ultimately affect the value of the development or a requirement for the developer to provide affordable housing would prejudice the viability of the proposal to the extent that it may not proceed. Therefore, having regard to the potential benefits to the area in terms of tourism and site improvement, I consider that the level of holiday accommodation being provided is acceptable and that, in this instance, there is sufficient justification to set aside the requirement for affordable housing.

Applicant's agent has provided copy of letter from Southern Water addressing both foul and surface water drainage. In this letter Southern Water advise that a hydraulic assessment of the existing sewage system indicates that there is sufficient capacity within the system to accommodate a foul flow no greater than 2 litres per second and that before a connection is made, an application to Southern Water Services would need to be completed and approved. Following further discussions with Southern Water on this issue, I am advised that guidance documents adopted by them indicate that average flows from a residential property would be approximately 4,000 litres per dwelling per day. Therefore, flows from the development, excluding the restaurant element, can be calculated at approximately one litre per second. Unfortunately, the guidance does not provide figures for restaurant properties, although I consider that this would be relatively small and that the overall flows from the development would be below the 2 litres per second specified by Southern Water. With regard to surface water disposal, Southern Water note that development is utilising the existing connection for surface water flows and that there will be no overall increase in surface flows to the combined sewage system. Southern Water would require the developer to provide a topographical site survey and calculations with the connection application submitted to them showing that the proposed run-off will be no greater than existing. In this respect, I do not consider that development of site as proposed would be likely to result in any increase in surface water run-off and having regard to comments of Southern Water, I am satisfied that drainage system in the locality would be adequate to serve the proposed development. However, should Members be minded to approve application, I would recommend that permission is subject to a condition in this respect.

The original submission was accompanied by a preliminary stability report prepared largely on the basis of existing information on the landslide system in Ventnor and experience of other sites. In accordance with the resolution of the Development Control Committee at the meeting held on 16 July 2002, a further more comprehensive report has been produced by the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer which includes details of subsurface investigations involving drilling bore holes at/immediately adjacent the application site and the carrying out of a topographic survey of the whole area from the Esplanade up to Belgrave Road. This information was referred to a firm of consulting engineers for comment. They have concluded that the ground conditions at the Metropole site have been investigated in sufficient detail to allow a reasonable estimate of the range of likely conditions that will have to be catered for by the proposed development and propped piled retaining wall stabilisation measures.

Some concern was raised regarding the analysis presented by the applicant's engineer, as a result of which further information was produced by him and sent directly to the engineers retained by the Council. Further comments have been received from them and I am advised that the applicant's engineer has very honestly presented his calculations as an investigation for modes of failure and that there is no doubt that this provides a useful insight into the expected ground behaviour. Therefore, they advised that the current calculations submitted do not present the likely magnitude of differential movements that are predicted, other than that they are reported not to be substantial or significant. Furthermore, they advise that the analysis is reported to account for the deformations seen at the site, so it may be concluded from this that further differential movements of the magnitude evident in the existing property and adjacent house is expected and that the proposed development will be designed to accommodate these movements. In order to assess the risk, these calculations need to be developed further at the detailed design state to demonstrate that this movement can be safely accommodated by the proposed structure.

The engineers retained by the Authority advise that in the light of the potential for considerable disagreement over the details of analysis, they have undertaken a broader, quantitative view of the evidence presented and conclude that the Slope Stability Report and subsequent information provided by the applicant's engineer are acceptable in supporting the planning application on the basis of the following provisos:

The Authority accepts that new development on the Metropole site will be subject to ongoing regional ground movements as the same manner as all existing surrounding properties.

Local differential movements are quantified at detailed design stage and it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of Building Control Officers that the proposed structure can accommodate these movements.

The proposed retaining wall is designed to satisfaction of Building Control Officers to prevent any local instabilities developing.

That their observations on possible additional work to provide a robust demonstration that the requirements of paragraph 1B 2 of PPG14 as applied by the Isle of Wight Council will be satisfied are made available to however becomes responsible for the detailed Building Control check.

With regard to the first of these issues, it is understood from the comments received from and discussions with the consulting engineers that subject to appropriate foundation design, the ongoing movement in the area is unlikely to present an unacceptable threat to the proposed development. In light of these comments, I would recommend additional conditions requiring submission of full calculations and detailed foundation design prior to work commencing on site. The remaining issues would need to be addressed by the applicant when seeking approval of Building Regulations.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. In so far 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 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 consider that the principle of a mixed commercial and residential development, incorporating a number of holiday flats, is acceptable. I consider that the scale and mass of the proposed building is similar to the existing hotel premises and that the general design and appearance of the building reflects the Victorian character of the town. Furthermore, having regard to the condition and general appearance of the existing building, its demolition and redevelopment of the site would improve the visual amenities of the locality.

I am satisfied that the information provided by the applicant's agent satisfactorily addresses the outstanding issues and that on the basis of the information provided, any increase in the number of holiday flats or a requirement for affordable housing would render the scheme unviable. Therefore, having regard to the potential benefits to the area in terms of tourism and tidying up the site, the proposal incorporates an acceptable mix of uses and that these factors are sufficient to justify setting aside the requirement for affordable housing. Listed below are suggested conditions should the application be approved at a future date, either in its present form or as an amended scheme.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Covering letter to accompany decision notice regarding ground stability issues)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Prior to any work commencing on site, including demolition of the existing building, a full Method Statement providing details of the timing of the demolition of the building and commencement of construction works, together with detailed foundation design and full calculations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason To ensure that any construction work will not adversely affect adjoining sites and that the development is capable of withstanding ongoing movements in the area and comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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.

The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

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

Prior to work commencing on site, details of security measures to be implemented in respect of the parking area and access to the flats shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the agreed measures shall be implemented prior to occupation of any of the flats hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of future occupiers of the development and to comply with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act.

The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until an extract ventilation system has been installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall comprise suitably sealed and fire proof exhaust ducting installed from the point of extraction to an extractor fan and then to a suitable point of discharge to the atmosphere, the height of which shall be not less than one metre above the ridge level of the building. The extractor fan shall be appropriately sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential for disturbance to the residential accommodation within the building by reason of noise or vibration and, therefore, shall include appropriate acoustic housing, silencing and system design. The system shall also incorporate a pre-filter/grease filter, a carbon filter de-odouriser and easy access for cleaning and general maintenance.

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

The restaurant hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the following times 0800 hours and midnight.

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

Notwithstanding the provision of any Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order, the use hereby permitted, insofar as it relates to the restaurant at ground floor level, shall be restricted to a cafe or restaurant and there shall be no sale of takeaway hot food from the premises without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the acceptability of alternative use and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

This permission shall not authorise the use of the restaurant for any purpose in Class A1 or A2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, except with the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the tourism economy of the area and to comply with Policy T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10	Holiday use only - E01

The holiday flats, identified by the yellow colour wash on the approved plans, and the restaurant shall not be sold off or otherwise disposed of on a long term basis separately but shall be retained in one ownership unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.

Reason: To ensure that the accommodation makes a positive contribution to the tourism economy of the area and to comply with Policy T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and Extension of the Season) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The occupation of the holiday flats, identified by the yellow colour wash on the approved plans, shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to any work commencing on site, including demolition of the original building, a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface and foul water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure that additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied or the restaurant brought into use until such agreed systems have been completed.

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

TCP/05548/G P/00101/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor East

Registration Date: 12/02/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Centra Estates Ltd

2/3 storey block providing 6 flats & 1 house; pair of semi-detached houses & parking/turning area (revised scheme) (revised plans) (readvertised application)

former garage premises, South Street, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Councillor Mrs Lawson as she lives in the immediate vicinity of the site and is unable to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 17 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit due to negotiations with applicants and, in particular, discussions and consultations with regard to ground stability.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to roughly rectangular site located on southern side of South Street and to rear of properties fronting Clarence Road. Site was previously occupied by number of single and two storey buildings used as commercial garage premises. These buildings were in a poor state of repair having suffered structural damage and have now been demolished.

The eastern boundary of site is defined by wall having height of approximately two metres beyond which are substantial terraced properties fronting Clarence Road whilst to west and fronting South Street is recently constructed two storey building containing two flats with block of three further properties to rear, all two storeys in height which are served by pedestrian access from South Street. Land to south of site falls away quite steeply to properties at lower level fronting St Catherines Street.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/5548D/S/25196 - Outline for eight flats in a two/three storey block was refused in December 1991 on grounds that site lies within an area of potential land instability and applicant had not submitted a site investigation report to ascertain whether the proposal would have any adverse effect on stability of the site, adjoining ground and nearby properties.

TCP/5548E/S/27134 - Full planning permission for two/three storey block of eight flats was conditionally approved in October 1992. Application was accompanied by a full ground stability report and therefore overcame reason for refusal of previous application. Approved plans showed three storey element fronting South Street with bridged access through to car park and two storey element to rear.

TCP/05548/F - P/00350/00 - Application for demolition of two flats and garage premises; proposed two/three storey block providing six flats and one two storey house and two semi-detached two storey houses with parking area, conditionally approved in July 2001. Approved plans showed three storey block of flats and two storey house linked with bridging unit on South Street frontage of site with car parking area and pair of semi-detached houses to rear. Semi-detached houses were located immediately to rear of flats, adjacent western boundary of site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks full planning permission for three storey block of six flats and one two storey house linked with bridging unit on South Street frontage with parking area and pair of semi-detached houses to rear. Proposal represents revised scheme to that previously approved involving a redesign of the three storey block of flats, including changes to layout of accommodation. Proposal also involves rearranging parking area to rear and relocating pair of semi-detached houses from western side of site to position adjacent eastern boundary.

Block of flats has three storey gable element on front elevation with windows either side projecting above eaves line and is full three storeys across whole of rear of building. Each of the flats would provide accommodation comprising lounge/diner, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom/W.C. Two storey house on the South Street frontage would provide accommodation comprising lounge/diner, kitchen and W.C. at ground floor level with three bedrooms and bathroom/W.C. at first floor level (one bedroom being provided within bridging unit between dwelling and block of flats). Two houses to rear of site would each provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen and W.C. at ground floor with three bedrooms and bathroom/W.C. at first floor level.

Following negotiations with applicants, revised plans were submitted showing alterations to the fenestration and general design and appearance of the block of six flats, indicating a less cluttered elevation onto South Street with gable feature containing communal entrance.

Application was accompanied by site assessment and investigation report dealing with ground stability issues and further information in this respect, including details of subsurface investigations, have subsequently been submitted to the Authority.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing sets out Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land advises that, when handling individual applications for development on land which is known or suspected to be unstable or potentially unstable, it will be necessary to take into account the potential hazard that such instability could create both to the development itself and to the neighbouring area. Whilst there is scope for flexibility and each application must be treated on its merits, it is important that a Local Planning Authority should be satisfied by the developer that any instability has been taken into account.

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

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.

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.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

TR6 - Cycling and Walking.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions requiring appropriate measures to be adopted to deal with possible contamination within site.

National Air Traffic Services Ltd has no safeguarding objection to proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ventnor Town Council raised no objection to original submission.

In response to notification of revised proposal, Ventnor Town Council commented that plans show unsuitable development in scale and layout and considered that development should accord with plans previously approved.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original submission attracted seven letters from local residents objecting to proposal and raising the following issues:

Plans do not clearly indicate how close pair of semi-detached houses are to properties in Clarence Road.

Properties either side of site are two storey - proposed three storey building will be considerably higher.

Houses in area are built of flint with white brick corners. Any new housing should blend in.

Parking in area already difficult - overflow from development will exacerbate the situation creating highway hazards.

Fire engines have difficulty getting round corner near site due to vehicles parked on road - further on-street parking would exacerbate situation.

Drainage in area is poor.

Loss of light.

Change in scheme not due to inaccuracies in dimensions of site but in order to provide sea views to proposed flats.

Area has history of instability - full geological survey should be undertaken prior to any development commencing.

Development could cause subsidence to adjacent properties.

Properties adjacent site have suffered subsidence and have been underpinned - additional weight of houses could cause further movement - no exploratory holes have been made.

Relocation of semi-detached houses further to west would result in weight being more equally distributed across site and resolve issue regarding loss of light to adjacent properties.

If development goes ahead and results in damage to properties in area, Planning Department must be held responsible.

Following publicity of revised plans a further seven letters were received from local residents objecting to proposal and raising additional issues as follows:

Previous derelict garage buildings were unsightly - renovation of land will enhance local area.

Height of building and position abutting pavement could have overpowering effect.

Overdevelopment.

Out of keeping with area.

Additional road into South Street presents visibility problems - hazard to children playing in area.

Loss of privacy.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer advises that having two houses at rear of site helps enormously with surveillance of the car parking area. He considers that tunnel entrance must have lighting in the roof as pedestrian traffic will be using it and we should avoid building a "fear of crime" tunnel. He also questions whether there would be lighting at the rear of the site to assist with protection of cars and the fear of crime issue. He would not wish the houses to be an "island" and considers that there needs to be fencing to demarcate private area and stop people walking round site. These areas must look private and not be owned just as communal areas. He considers that the access to the site should give the impression of entering private area. Implementation of these measures would not change trespass problem but should be seen as providing a psychological barrier.

EVALUATION

Proposal involves redevelopment of a brownfield site within the development boundary and I consider that proposal is clearly acceptable in principle. Furthermore, previous approval, involving same makeup and number of units clearly illustrates that site is capable of accommodating number of units proposed. Therefore, I consider that determining factors in considering current application are as follows:

Whether changes to design and general appearance of block of flats results in building out of keeping with its surroundings.

Whether alterations to layout of flats and repositioning of pair of semi-detached houses to rear of site adversely impacts on amenities of neighbouring properties.

Whether application adequately addresses issues relating to ground stability.

Whilst properties either side of application site provide two storey accommodation, plans submitted in respect of proposal include street scene which indicates that the three storey block of flats would not be significantly higher than the adjacent properties. Area is characterised by a mix of building styles, including some substantial three storey properties to opposite side of South Street. Planning permission has previously been granted on this site on two occasions involving the construction of a three storey building immediately adjacent boundary with South Street. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider the proposal to introduce a three storey building on the site is inappropriate or that the development would be out of keeping with its surroundings or detract from the amenities of the locality. Furthermore, I do not consider that changes in the orientation and layout of the flats significantly alters effect of proposal on neighbouring properties.

Previously approved scheme involved construction of pair of semi-detached houses to rear of block of flats adjacent western boundary of site. Current proposal relocates these properties to eastern side of site, immediately adjacent boundary with properties fronting Clarence Road. Following an inspection of the site, it was noted that the rear elevations of properties fronting Clarence Road contain few windows of any significance or which would be adversely affected by the location of the pair of semi-detached properties. Furthermore, it should be noted that site was previously occupied by quite substantial building which has now been demolished, retaining a wall to eastern boundary of site with height of approximately two metres. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that the development would have an excessive or adverse impact on neighbouring properties or would be likely to result in a loss of light to a degree which would warrant refusal of the application.

Following consideration of the ground stability report which accompanied the original submission, the consultant engaged by the Authority indicated that he was not satisfied that the report fully addressed a number of issues. In particular, he indicated that, from his experience of the area, there was possibly a fault line across the front of the site and he also was not satisfied that the report produced by the applicant's engineer adequately addressed the likely impacts of the development on the steep slope immediately to south of the site. The applicant was made aware of these concerns and further information was subsequently submitted, including details of sub-surface investigations. The following are extracts from letter submitted by applicant's engineer providing details of the sub-surface investigations:

"...... on 12 May 2003, a 750 mm wide by 3 metre deep trench was excavated for a length of approximately 13 metres from the road frontage at South Street towards the seaward boundary, at a distance 6.5 metres from the east boundary wall. For a length of approximately 6.5 metres from South Street the trench revealed building rubble to a depth of about 1.5 metres overlying firm landslip debris material, typical of the area, with inclusions of chalk and small stones. The remainder of the trench revealed similar material but overlain by approximately 0.3 metre of hardcore and concrete oversite slab. No evidence of a fault line or ground movement was noted within the trench, nor on the surface of the adjacent ground. No significant cracks were noted to the east side masonry boundary wall, nor to the flank wall of no. 72 South Street, the building adjoining the western side of the site."

With regard to the slope to the south of the site, the applicant's engineer provided a description of this feature and commented that no significant cracking to house or garden walls could be discerned from St Catherines Street and no signs of significant movement of garden features could be seen when the slope was viewed from the top. He commented that the footprint of the two semi-detached houses at the south eastern corner of the site is set back some distance from the top of this main scarp slope which descends down to the rear of properties fronting St Catherines Street. Furthermore, he commented that, in the case of the pair of semi-detached houses, the ground loading imparted by these timber frame structures will be considerably less than that of the large steel and masonry constructed workshop building which has hitherto occupied the garage site for some decades.

The engineer also provides details of their experience with and involvement in properties within the locality with particular reference to their involvement in the design of a new retaining wall to the rear of properties in St Catherines Street. They indicate that the need for the retaining wall arose primarily from localised drainage defects and not from any fundamental deep seated ground failure mechanism. He also indicates that his company was employed by the former South Wight Borough Council to deal with slope instability to the western end of the scarp slope, between St Catherines Street and approximately the junction of South Street and East Street above. He explains that this localised instability was due to failure of a poor quality retaining wall forming the rear wall of a Victorian house. He advises that the crib wall type retaining structure which was constructed to replace the original Victorian wall has remained stable for the past ten years, the instability problem here being due to the particular circumstances of the site, with the original ground slope apparently having been excavated out and faced by a structure which in the long term proved inadequate.

Following consideration of the additional information submitted by the applicant's engineer, I am advised by the consultant retained by the Authority that, in his opinion, there is no sustainable reason why the development should be refused for reason of ground instability.

Whilst one resident has indicated that, in the event that the development results in damage to properties in area, the Planning Department must be held responsible, advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land clearly indicates that it is the responsibility of the developer to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that instability has been taken into account. Furthermore, the Guidance Note clearly indicates that responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer and/or landowner and that, although the Local Planning Authority has used its best endeavours to determine the application on the basis of the information available to it, this does not mean that the land is free from instability.

In accordance with the Council's parking guidelines, a development of the size proposed would attract a maximum non-operational off-street vehicle parking provision of 23 spaces. In this instance, the property is located in Zone 3 where 0 - 75% of the non-operational parking provision would apply, equating to a maximum of approximately 18 spaces for the proposal. Submitted plans show provision for the parking of nine vehicles and, having regard to location of site in relatively close proximity to facilities of Ventnor and Government guidance and local policies in this respect, I am satisfied that the level of parking proposed is adequate. Furthermore, in absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that refusal on grounds of inadequate parking provision and/or traffic generation would be sustainable.

Whilst it has been suggested that scheme has been altered simply to provide flats with sea view, the reason for the change is irrelevant and the proposal must be considered on its merits.

With regard to comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer, I consider that his concerns/comments can be adequately addressed through conditions of the planning permission requiring submission of details of landscaping, boundary details etc. However, in order to focus the applicant's attention on these issues, attention could be drawn to the Architectural Liaison Officer in a letter accompanying decision notice.

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 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 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 represents an acceptable form of development which will not have excessive or adverse impact on neighbouring occupiers or detract from the amenities and character of the locality. In particular, following consultations with the civil, structural and geotechnical engineer retained by the Authority, I am satisfied that applicant has satisfactorily addressed matters relating to ground stability. In this respect, should Members be minded to approve the application, I consider that the planning permission decision notice should be accompanied by a letter outlining the procedures adopted in considering the application, advising that responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer and/or landowner and recommending that the developer should obtain Building Regulations Approval through the Local Authority in order to maintain consistency in approach to issues relating to ground stability.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (covering letter to accompany decision notice regarding ground stability considerations and drawing attention to issues raised by the Architectural Liaison Officer).)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

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 samples 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.

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of planting.

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

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) 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 prior to any of the dwelling units hereby approved being 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.

All material excavated as a result of general ground works 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 prior to any of the dwelling units hereby approved being occupied.

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

Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The scheme required by condition 8 above shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the (public/buildings/ environment) when the site is developed.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Development shall not commence until the measures approved in the agreed decontamination scheme have been implemented.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

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

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:

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.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure (and covered) parking of a minimum of six bicycles in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall be retained. Such provision shall be made in the form of ‘Sheffield’ hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

15	Provision of turning area - K40

The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of nine parking spaces has been provided within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with the approved plans, and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.

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

No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding 600 mm in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

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

18	Timing of occupation - J10

Prior to any of the flats hereby approved being occupied, an opaque screen to a minimum height of 1.8 metres shall be erected on the western perimeter of the balconies at first and second floor level on the western end of the building in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the screens shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to work commencing on site, a scheme for the provision of lighting at the access to the site and within the parking area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting shall be installed prior to any of the dwellings/flats being occupied and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To reduce the opportunities for crime in accordance with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/06661/N P/00800/03 Parish/Name: Fishbourne Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 17/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Aluminium Shipbuilders Ltd

Detached house

The Shipyard, Ashlake Copse Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334EY

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application raises policy issues which require consideration by Members.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If application is decided at meeting submission will have been decided within eight weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to industrial boat building premises located at northern end of Ashlake Copse Road with western boundary of site fronting Wootton Creek.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Extensive planning history on this site with most recent decisions summarised as follows:

In April 2002 consent granted for formation of slipway and jetty and pair of semi-detached dwellings with access served off Ranalagh Drive. Subsequently detailed consent granted for two detached houses in May of this year.

Both the above mentioned applications were subject to conditions which amongst other matters required access to be gained to and from the site from Ranalagh Drive by the opening up of that road together with final surface finish details.

Application is currently under consideration for temporary siting of boat shed for construction of hovercraft and pontoon berths/moorings which has yet to be determined but is expected any such approval will again require identical access arrangements to those referred above.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks detailed consent for construction of further detached dwelling on site.

Dwelling is shown to be located immediately to rear (east) of main industrial boat building premises towards south eastern corner of site. New dwelling would front main access road through site and face onto two dwellings approved earlier this year.

Submitted details indicate dwelling comprising lounge, dining room, kitchen/family room and integral garage at ground floor level with four bedrooms above.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The majority of industrial site and part of land fronting foreshore is located within established development envelope boundary as shown on Unitary Development Plan. In terms of UDP policies the following policies are considered relevant:

G1 - Development Envelopes in Towns and Villages

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses

E3 - Resist Development to Allocated Employment Land for Other Uses

E5 - Allocation of Employment Sites

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

Adopted planning brief for site (May 2002) seeks to retain marine related industry with construction of some residential development subject to safeguards such as noise control to support provision of employment generating uses. Majority of application site lies within land identified as appropriate for residential use with slight incursion to employment allocated land. Brief advises that developments at Fishbourne Quay should be served by vehicular traffic entirely from Ranalagh Drive.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Contaminated Land Officer recommends standard condition requiring site investigation in order that any contamination is identified and remediated.

Environmental Health Officer comments will be reported at the meeting.

English Nature advise that, in their opinion, proposed works are not likely to have significant effect on Sites of European Importance nor result in damage to SSSI. English Nature therefore raises no objection to application.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at time of preparing report.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

There is no objection in principle to application seeking additional residential accommodation given that site lies within development envelope and complies in the main with planning brief adopted by Council. However, there are more detailed matters which need to be considered involving principally the relationship between the new residential unit and the existing boatyard premises (general industrial use) which may have potential for causing disamenity to occupiers of proposed dwelling. On this point, Council's Environmental Health Officers views are considered particularly important.

In terms of policy, whilst site of dwelling falls within area identified as being suitable for residential development as part of overall redevelopment/regeneration of site, comments of

Planning Policy Team Leader have been sought as proposal is located on site of existing employment generator.

He comments:

"The guidelines recognise that any proposal should be for the whole of the site and that the benefits for employment should be secured before any enabling development is occupied. Further, the expectation is that the current employment floor space should be at least equalled in any redevelopment."

The agreed aim for the site is to enable the retention and improvement of employment development including bringing back into employment use those areas previously occupied by industrial buildings.

The proposed site is currently occupied by employment workshops that is proposed to remove to enable the proposed house to be built. In the light of the above guidelines I consider it appropriate to condition any consent to ensure that the equivalent replacement floor space of marine related employment use is provided on-site prior to the occupation of the proposed dwelling."

Provided support of Environmental Health Officer has been obtained which may require appropriate conditions being attached to consent then it is considered reasonable to support application for additional residential unit provided such consent is conditional on lost floor space being relocated and provided on-site prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

If Members agree to approach taken in respect of this application it is recommended that approval is granted subject to appropriate conditions including requirement for access via Ranalagh Drive.

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 application 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 on 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.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions the scheme complies with both UDP policy and adopted planning brief for site and recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Prior to any development taking place in accordance with the approved scheme on site the western end of Ranalagh Drive shall be opened up to connect with and provide access to the application site (Fishbourne Quay). Thereafter, such an access from Ranalagh Drive shall be kept available at all times for use by traffic visiting or leaving the application site. Any variation to this agreement shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To assure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

All traffic (including construction traffic) visiting or accessing the site in connection with the development hereby approved shall not use Ashlake Copse Road as a means of access to and from the site, unless agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and highway safety and to comply with policies D1 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the final surface finish of the western end of Ranalagh Drive shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such agreed works shall be carried out in full prior to any works commencing on site.

Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Construction of the building 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.

Prior to the dwelling hereby approved being occupied the equivalent of floor space to replace that lost as a result of the approved development shall be provided on site in accordance with a scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Policy E3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and the adopted planning brief for this site in seeking to retain the existing employment base of the site.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) a desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2 and 3 and BS10175:2001;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

TCP/09682/E P/00267/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 06/03/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: H Matthews Esq

Conversion/adaptation of unauthorised 2 storey building into single storey barn

Fernhill House, Fernhill, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334QX

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Development Control Manager.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 14 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to further information being forwarded by the agent and this being the earliest committee date following the Development Control Manager instruction.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is to the south of Wootton, accessed off Fernhill, an unadopted roadway which has a junction to Station Road approximately 120 metres south of Lushington Hill traffic lights. There is bungalow on site with some outbuildings within a garden of 1.127 hectares and the unauthorised building the subject of this application. The site itself is isolated and surrounded by open countryside.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/9682 - outline consent for erection of dwelling at Fernhill Gardens - approved subject to conditions including agricultural occupancy condition in November 1963.

TCP/9682/A - erection of bungalow at Fernhill Nurseries - approved subject to conditions including agricultural occupancy condition in January 1964.

As a result of investigations following allegations of business use, a Planning Contravention Notice was served on the owner in March 2000. From the information received, the owner was advised in May 2000 that on the basis of information provided, there was no material change of use of the premises requiring planning permission at that time. It also appeared from the information provided that the agricultural occupancy condition was being complied with.

TCP/9682/C - Retention and completion of new building to provide holiday accommodation - Refused March 2002.

ENF/9682/D - Following a report to the Development Control Committee on 18 December 2001 enforcement action was authorised seeking the removal of the building. The Notice was issued on 19 February 2002 - attached as Appendix A. Two appeals against the Enforcement Notice were lodged, both stopped the enforcement action pending the determination of the appeals. One appeal was not accepted by the Planning Inspectorate as it was out of time, and the other failed to provide the relevant information and the Secretary of State dismissed it on 19 June 2002. The enforcement action recommenced from 19 June 2002 with a new compliance date of 19 December 2002.

The site was visited in January 2003 and it was noted that the building had not been removed. Following several exchanges of correspondence with the landowner the Council's Solicitor is being asked to pursue the failure to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice through the Courts.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent for the conversion and adaptation of an unauthorised two storey building to provide a single storey barn. The application form states that the first floor is to be demolished but the proposed elevational drawings do not reflect this. The plans detailing the existing floor plans show kitchen/utility, w.c., lounge, porch at ground floor with 3 bedrooms and bathroom at first floor. The elevation drawings show changes to the north and south elevation to remove windows. The materials are wood and country cladding of grey/green. Applicants supporting letter details history of development - attached as Appendix B. Additional information received on behalf of applicant attached as Appendix C.

At the time of my inspection of the site the applicant advised that there were 50 /60 apple trees on the site and that he grew garlic but none at the time of my visit. It was also noted that the elevation drawings were inaccurate.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is outside the defined development envelope for Wootton. Policies S4 - Strategic Policy protecting countryside from inappropriate development, G1, Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements, C1 - Protection of Landscape Character, D1 - Standards of Design are relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers no highway implications on application.

Environment Health make no comment.

Ecology Officer has confirmed that a Barn Owl has taken up residence in the building and is using it as a roosting site but it is not being used as a breeding site. The Wildlife and Countryside Act confers protection of Barn Owls at their nest site. However, the loss of a roost site can affect the breeding population of Barn Owls in the area if there are no alternative roosting sites in the vicinity. It is entirely possible that demolition or other disturbance may have a detrimental “knock-on” effect if the Barn Owl concerned has a nest site nearby. Disturbance of such an adult bird could be deemed an offence under the legislation and should be avoided.

For this reason, Ecology Officer advises that any disturbance should not be permitted between the months of April to August inclusive. Also advises that, following any approved works, provision for a Barn Owl box should be provided.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council requests information on what use the barn would be put to and whether it is justified before commenting. Any further comment will be reported at meeting.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

The site is in within an area of open countryside where planning policies seek to protect the landscape character from inappropriate development. Applications should maintain and protect the landscape, should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there and must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area.

Some types of development are considered appropriate in the countryside. These are generally ones which are essential and necessary to the successful operation of the rural economy, or provide for the needs of the rural population.

With regard design standards, one of the objectives of policy is to promote and enhance the character of the Islands countryside. In accordance with Policy D1, applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and should be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing.

The building subject of this application was first brought to the Councils attention and investigated by the Enforcement Section in July 2001. At that time construction work revealed a two storey wooden chalet structure. An application submitted in November 2001 claimed that the building was a rural outbuilding and the intention was to convert it into tourism and holiday accommodation to support the agricultural business. The application was returned to the applicant as it was incomplete to be registered.

As the history section of this report details, there is an outstanding breach of the Enforcement Notice which should have been complied with by 19 December 2002. Failure to comply with the requirements of an Enforcement Notice is a criminal offence.

The application for retention and completion of the new building to provide holiday accommodation that was refused in March 2002 has not been the subject of any appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

This matter has now been outstanding since July 2001 with the unauthorised building still on site. The owners have been given more than ample time to comply with the Enforcement Notice or appeal the decisions.

The current application would seem to be a further attempt to retain a building not constructed for the purpose intended. The submitted plans do not reflect a demolition of the first floor of the building and are inaccurate in detail and the site inspection has revealed limited evidence of agriculture activity. Whilst the supporting letter gives details on the business potential, there is no evidence of the existing level of use of other buildings on site and the evidence does not override the Policy objection. I would also suggest that the position of the barn in the lower eastern end of the holding is not ideally located to serve the enterprise.

Policy C17 of the UDP relates to conversion of existing building but is not relevant in this case as the unauthorised building was a new build. One of the concerns in dealing with this application is that if a building is permitted in the countryside without justification of its need in connection with the use of land, then how long will it be before a further application is submitted to convert this building for purposes unrelated to agriculture.

The policies referred to in this report are of primacy in the consideration of this application and it is my view that the supporting information does not provide sufficient justification of agriculture need. The building is of domestic appearance and the plans inaccurate. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy.

Notwithstanding the outcome of this application or the Ecology officer comments with regard the Barn Owl; at the time of report writing, the Enforcement Section are preparing their statement of evidence to submit to the Legal Services Department with a view to commencement of prosecution proceedings.

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 the 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 proposal represents inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to policy and recommend accordingly.

1. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal as submitted is not supported by sufficient evidence to outweigh Policies restricting new building in the countryside to that shown to be necessary and in the interests of agriculture and is therefore contrary to Policies S4, G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal would be detrimental to the rural character of the area by reason of the physical impact and appearance and would therefore conflict with the intention of the Local Planning Authority to protect the natural beauty of the landscape and would be contrary to Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the building is required for agriculture purposes on this site and furthermore the design and construction of the building does not suggest ancillary agriculture uses. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

4	The information accompanying this application is inadequate and inaccurate in respect of the application form and elevation drawings so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effect of the proposal on the landscape character.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the Members of the Development Control Committee note and support the current actions of the Officers in pursuing the failure to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice through the Magistrates Court.

TCP/11594/Y P/00634/02 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 10/04/2002 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Sucan Design & Build

2 storey extension to form 2 flats; 4 dwellings (revised plans), (revised scheme), (readvertised application)

Heathfield House, Heathfield Road, Freshwater, PO40

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application was previously considered by Members at the meeting held on 17 September 2002 when it was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to a voluntary modification, without compensation, of a previous planning permission for residential accommodation at the site. To date, the planning permission decision notice has not been issued due largely to discussions in respect of the modification of the previous planning consent. Applicants have also indicated to Officers that they would wish to carry out development in a different form to that previously presented to Members. The revised scheme has been readvertised and brought back to Committee to be reconsidered.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to residential development on western side of Heathfield Road. Existing building sits back from road in quite substantial grounds and is accessed over private drive, off Heathfield Road, approximately 140 metres north of its junction with the Sheilings. Original building, constructed of natural stone with yellow brick quoins and dressings under slate roof, was formerly used as an hotel and was converted into flats pursuant to planning permission granted in February 1989. The grounds to the property are well stocked with trees, particularly on southern side of building, a large number of which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11594R/S/23366 - Extension and conversion of hotel to form eleven self-contained flats conditionally approved in February 1989.

TCP/11594T/S/26011 - Planning permission for eleven flats in two two storey blocks conditionally approved in April 1991. This permission has been implemented insofar as it relates to the construction of one block of four flats. The remainder of the development, in the form of an extension to the main building to provide seven flats, remains valid.

TCP/11594U/S/28339 - Outline for six detached chalet bungalows refused in January 1994. Permission was refused on policy grounds on basis site was not allocated for residential development and was located outside the development boundary. In addition, grounds for refusal also related to effect of proposal on privacy and amenities of adjoining residential properties and that proposal would threaten the medium and long term survival of trees within the site, the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

TCP/11594V/S/28338 - Outline for ten flats in a two storey block on land to south of Heathfield House refused in January 1994. Permission was refused on same grounds as previous application.

Both of the applications refused in January 1994 were the subject of subsequent appeals to the Planning Inspectorate which were dismissed in October 1994. The appointed Inspector acknowledged that the proposals, particularly the scheme for six bungalows could not avoid having a significant impact on the present extensive tree cover on the site which he considered to be an important feature of the transition between the more urban style of residential development to the south and the more scattered rural nature of the development to the north. He considered that even the two storey block of flats would be bound to have some, albeit reduced impact and was not convinced by applicants' suggestion that only minimal tree thinning would be required.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Original submission involved provision of six additional units of accommodation in the form of two flats as an extension to the north western corner of the original building and a block of four dwellings in an L-shaped configuration immediately to east of building and adjacent access drive.

Each of the flats would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, two bedrooms and bathroom/w.c. Each of the dwellings would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen and w.c. at ground floor level with three bedrooms and bathroom at first floor level. Footprint and overall scale of the dwellings is smaller than the original building. During pre-application discussions, it was suggested that design of buildings should reflect that of a coach house, subservient to the main building.

Following consideration of the original scheme by Committee, further discussions have taken place with the applicants and revised plans submitted showing a slight increase in the footprint of the extension to the main building and relocation of the block of four houses to a position on the southern side of the parking area and block of four flats previously constructed adjacent the main building. Make up of accommodation within the units remains the same.

Submitted plans show removal of a number of trees within the wooded area to the south of the main building and additional landscaping to be carried out along western boundary of site. Trees adjacent eastern boundary of site which would have been removed in connection with previous scheme are shown to be retained.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be immediately adjacent but outside the defined development boundary. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

In response to consultations with the Tree and Landscape Officer in respect of original submission she advised that there are many trees on this site which are still worth protecting. She expressed view that the extensions as proposed at either the north eastern corner or north western corner of the existing building would be unacceptable in terms of the impact on trees, landscape or architecture. In particular, she commented that at the north eastern corner there are trees, including a protected beech which would need to be removed but whose loss would not be significant as it has now mostly died back. Further to the north there is a well shaped sycamore which would be lost as well as a well shaped lime which would be too close to the building and would sooner or later have to be removed. In addition, she advised that a Monterey cypress to the north west of the proposed block of four dwellings would also be too close and would, in due course, have to be removed. She suggested that moving the block of four houses further south may result in loss of fewer trees. With regard to the proposed extension on the north western corner of the building, she considered that this would also be too close to a Monterey pine and oak tree, both of which are protected, and for this reason the proposed development should be refused. The Tree and Landscape Officer suggested that more appropriate location for development would be to south and west of existing building in such a way as to form an attractive courtyard at the end of the drive.

Following receipt of revised plans, further consultations were carried out with the Tree and Landscape Officer. She advised that, notwithstanding the alterations to the scheme, the sycamore would still be lost, although it should be possible to retain the lime and the Monterey cypress. Therefore, she withdrew her objection to the element of the proposal to the east of the original building. However, she still had reservations about the proposed work at the north western corner of the building.

Following consideration of the original scheme by Committee, the Tree and Landscape Officer met on site with the applicants and discussions took place regarding potential to relocate block of four houses to position now proposed. These discussions focused on effect of proposal on trees and consequential impact on character of the locality. Following submission of a revised plan for consideration by her, she has concluded that, whilst proposal would result in loss of a number of trees, this alone would not justify refusal of the application. In particular, she indicated during the course of these discussions that, if well designed to compliment the existing building, proposal could enhance the landscape within the site by creating courtyard effect and that if screening effect of trees near boundaries was retained, proposal would have little impact on the appearance of the site from public land as site would still appear well treed despite the development. The revised layout accords with the Tree and Landscape Officer's original suggestion to create a courtyard style development.

Assistant Ecology Officer has carried out an inspection of the site and advises that, whilst she found evidence that badgers may use the site for foraging, there is no evidence of a sett. However, she advises that, should the development go ahead, any trenches that are left open overnight should have a means of escape for any animals that might fall in. As far as other animals using the site, she advises that there are foxes in the north western part, away from the proposed dwellings and evidence of a large number of birds. In this respect, she advises that any tree, shrub or bramble clearance should take place outside the nesting season (August to February inclusive) to avoid disturbance of nesting birds which is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I am advised that the trees would provide food for red squirrels, although there was no evidence of their presence, and that the site is a suitable feeding area for bats, but that there were no signs of roosts in the trees.

Comments were received from the Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service in respect of original submission advising that scheme was satisfactory, subject to access to existing premises being maintained at all times for emergency vehicles.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council raise no objection in respect of original submission providing area is within development envelope.

Following notification of revised scheme, comments were received from Freshwater Parish Council in support of proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Original submission attracted six letters from residents of Heathfield Meadows development, of which one does not indicate whether they support or oppose proposal, two considered it to be unacceptable in its submitted form and three raise no objection. Letters received raise the following issues:

Preference for dwellings to be sited further into scrub land (northerly direction).

Desire to see access to rear of flats maintained particularly for those residents with invalid buggies.

Overlooking/loss of privacy from proposed houses.

Limited space between dwellings and existing boundary fence.

Access to lawns to rear of Heathfield House must be maintained for use by residents.

Concern that access must be maintained for emergency vehicles.

Design of flats is excellent and houses are in sympathy with the existing buildings.

Extension to complete flats considered satisfactory. However, proposed houses considered too close to main house and will cause disruption - ample land in the scrub area away from the house.

Suggestion that parking for houses could be along access drive - no parking should be permitted in protected woodland in front of house.

Development occupies area allocated for residents parking.

Resident questions whether there should be access from the rear of the two flats - access should be along existing paths.

Development will lead to increased use of access from site to public highway - only footpath to opposite side of road - suggested there should be warning signs and crossing for elderly/disabled with road surface markings and severe speed restrictions.

Following publicity of revised plans, a further eight letters were received from local residents. Grounds for objection/concerns raised can be summarised as follows:

Land not allocated for residential development.

Two storey buildings inappropriate for locality.

Adverse effect on amenities of adjacent properties including loss of light, loss of privacy and adverse effect on outlook.

Increase in traffic generation to and from site accessed off busy road where visibility is limited - increased noise and disturbance.

Trees subject of TPO should remain undisturbed.

Effect on wildlife including badgers, red squirrels and native birds.

Removal of trees/shrubs could cause drainage problems and flooding to adjacent properties - developer should make suitable arrangements for drainage.

Proposal could set precedent leading to eradication of the woodland.

Need for adequate boundary treatments.

One resident raises no objection to proposed extension to provide two flats and suggests that houses should be located on waste ground to north of main building.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering current application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether size, scale, design and general appearance of additional elements is appropriate or would detract from character of locality, including impact on/loss of trees, and amenities of existing residents within the development. Furthermore, having regard to history of site and the refusal of two previous applications for development on south side of main building refused on grounds which included loss of trees, and subsequently dismissed on appeal, it is necessary to consider whether the revised proposal would have unacceptable effect on and loss of trees within the site.

Building has been extended in south western corner with two storey addition to provide further four flats. This formed part of larger scheme for total of eleven flats in two, two storey blocks approved in April 1991. As this scheme has been commenced in part, permission for the remainder of the development involving seven flats in a two storey extension on the northern side of the building remains valid.

In general, further development outside the development boundaries defined in the Unitary Development Plan would be contrary to policies which seek to resist development in such areas, unless it falls within a category, specified in policies of the plan, which may exceptionally be permitted. Whilst, in this instance, the proposal does not fall within any of the categories of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside the development boundary, it should be noted that the applicant could proceed with the approved development and construct the extension to the main building providing an additional seven units of accommodation. Therefore, current proposal involving provision of six units of accommodation represents a reduction in the total number being provided on the site. In this instance, I consider that the planning history of this site is an important material consideration which should be given appropriate weight and would justify the approval of the current proposal without prejudicing the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. However, having regard to the position of the proposed four dwellings, the construction of these units would not preclude the provision of the previously approved extension to the main building, potentially resulting in the addition of a total of eleven units at the site. Therefore, I consider that, should Members be minded to approve the application, the permission should be subject to a voluntary modification, without compensation, of the previous consent, insofar as it relates to the outstanding element.

Turning to the effect of the proposal on the character of the locality, I consider that, having regard to location of site, set back off public highway, greatest impact is likely to result from loss of trees. In this respect, it should be noted that majority of trees within the site are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Whilst noting the original comments of the Tree and Landscape Officer regarding the extension to the main building, it should be noted that the previous scheme, which is subject of an extant permission, involved a significantly larger addition which would encroach much closer to, and would potentially have adverse effect on these trees, possibly to the extent that they could not be retained.

Whilst current proposal would necessitate removal of a number of trees within the grounds to the south of the main building, when compared with the previous proposals for development in this area, which were refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal, proposed dwellings would occupy a significantly smaller area than the six bungalows and would have a smaller footprint than the two storey block of flats. Furthermore, the proposal for the block of flats also included the formation of a car park immediately adjacent the eastern boundary of the site resulting in further loss of trees in this area. However, having regard to overall number of trees within site, I consider that current proposal would result in a relatively small loss and would not have a significant effect on or detract from character of the locality. Furthermore, submitted plans indicate that additional planting is to be carried out along western boundary, reinforcing tree cover in this area and maintaining wooded appearance when viewed from outside the site.

A number of concerns have been expressed by local residents regarding loss of trees, including effect on groundwater conditions and impact on wildlife. Having regard to the overall number of trees within the site, I consider that the proposal would result in a relatively small loss and not have a significant impact on these factors. Furthermore, it should be noted that original proposal would have resulted in loss of a number of trees, within area to east of main building and adjacent boundary to site, which can now be retained. In any event, and in order to minimise impact on nesting birds, I consider applicant should be advised that any tree work/removal should be undertaken outside the nesting season.

The additional elements are considered to be acceptable in terms of size, scale, design and general appearance and I am satisfied that, subject to use of appropriate materials, the proposal will not detract from the appearance of the development or the character of the locality in general. In particular, I consider that the four additional units to be located to the south of the main building would remain a subordinate element within the development. Whilst these units would have little or no designated private amenity area, it should be noted that proposal also includes landscaping of remainder of land to rear of the original building which, it is understood, would be for communal use of all residents within the development. I consider that such landscaping will make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site.

Having regard to location of property and extent of the ground surrounding the building, I am satisfied that proposal will not have adverse effect on adjacent properties. In particular, in terms of potential impact on properties fronting Heathfield Road to the east and The Sheilings to the south, I am satisfied that, having regard to distances involved and the number of trees between these properties and the proposed dwellings, which are to be retained and provide an effective screen, I am satisfied that proposal would not adversely impact on the privacy of the neighbouring residents. Retention of trees around the boundaries of the site, should ensure that the well treed appearance is retained when looking in from outside the site, thereby preserving the outlook of adjacent properties. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposal will not detract from the amenities of existing residents within the development. In particular, the proposed extension to the building is significantly smaller than the previously approved extension for which permission remains valid.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, whilst outside the development boundary, given the planning history of the site, proposal is acceptable in principle and that proposed additions are compatible with the existing development and will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of adjacent properties and existing residents of Heathfield House. In particular, I am satisfied that the number of trees to be removed as a result of the development has been kept to a minimum and, having regard to the comments of the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer, I do not consider that this would provide a sustainable reason for refusal.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Subject to voluntary modification without compensation, of the planning permission granted under reference TCP/11594T/S/26011 insofar as it relates to provision of a two storey extension on the north western corner of the building to provide seven flats.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02

3	Submission of samples - S03

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

(a)No placement or storage of material;

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

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

6	Landscape works implementation - M30

All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red or blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to occupation of any part of the development hereby approved.

Prior to occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained.

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

9	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

10	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

11	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01

2. RECOMMENDATION - That applicant is advised that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to disturb a nest which is in use and any tree surgery or removal should be carried out outside the nesting season.

TCP/21651/B P/00209/03 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date: 03/02/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr C & Mrs J Holmes

Removal of agricultural occupancy condition on TCP/19655 & TCP/19655/A

Hermitage Court Farm, Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382PJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Mrs White has submitted written comments in support of proposal and would therefore by unable to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 18 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to the need to obtain comments from an agricultural consultant on the merits of the case.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to chalet style property, the subject of an agricultural occupancy restriction, situated in isolated rural location on down land some 2 kilometres to west of Whitwell. Land surrounding property is undulating, rising to west and falling to east into valley.

Holding comprises area of land of approximately 5 hectares, some 0.8 hectares is owned by the applicant while the balance is held under a lease from the National Trust.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19655/S/22716 - Outline planning permission for agricultural workers dwelling conditionally approved July 1988. Permission was subject to a condition restricting occupancy of dwelling as follows:

"The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person."

TCP/19655/A/S/24395 - Approval of reserved matters granted for agricultural workers dwelling in August 1989. Permission was again subject to condition restricting occupancy as detailed above.

A complaint was received by the authority during January 2001 alleging that the occupants of the dwelling were not employed in agriculture and were therefore in breach of the occupancy restriction. A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the owners of the property and, following receipt of information in response to the notice, it was established that, at that time, the owners were not in breach of the occupancy restriction and the complainant was advised accordingly.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks to remove the agricultural occupancy condition imposed on the outline planning permission and approval of reserved matters thereby releasing the dwelling from the occupancy restriction. Application was accompanied by a farm business viability report providing information in support of the applicants case. The report addressed a number of areas, including a description of the holding, past and present farming system, alternative farming systems and the demand for other potential qualifying occupants. The latter provided details of measures carried out in order to determine the demand for the property, having regard to the occupancy restriction, including sale of the property on the open market and survey of farmers in the locality who may be interested in either buying or renting the property.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside provides advice on the role of the planning system in relation to the countryside. In particular, the guidance note contains an Annexe which deals specifically with the issue of agricultural and forestry dwellings. The guidance note advises that the Local Planning Authority should monitor the operation of occupancy conditions and should take appropriate action where they are not being complied with. In terms of assessing the continued need for such an occupancy restriction on a dwelling, the guidance note provides the following advice:

"Changes in the scale and character of farming and forestry in response to market changes may affect the long term requirement for dwellings for which permission has been granted subject to an occupancy condition of the type set out above. Such dwellings should not be kept vacant, nor should their present occupants be unnecessarily obliged to remain in occupation simply by virtue of planning conditions restricting occupancy which have outlived their usefulness. Applications for the removal of occupancy conditions should be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the existing need for them, bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the particular holding that is relevant."

Site is located well outside any settlement defined by the development boundaries on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the holding is immediately adjacent area of land designated as a Site of Important for Nature Conservation. The Unitary Development Plan does not contain any policy specifically relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. However, policies considered relevant to the provision of residential accommodation in the countryside are set out below:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development;

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages;

G4 - General locational criteria for development;

G5 - Development outside defined settlements;

H9 - Residential development outside development boundaries.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

No highway implications anticipated.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Planning and Information Officer highlights that, in pursuing the primary purpose of AONB designations, account should be taken of the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities. She comments that the importance of agriculture for the local economy and also management of the landscape provides few circumstances where dwellings with agricultural restrictions may be permitted as new development in the countryside. She does not consider that applicants agent has provided sufficient information to justify the removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction in this instance and, therefore, that the application should be refused.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal to application on grounds that agricultural occupancy of the dwelling was the original intention.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

9 letters received from local residents, 4 from the same household, objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Marketing exercise and other methods of disposing of dwelling questioned - agricultural workers dwellings still being built in area;

Removal of occupancy restriction would deprive others wishing to start small holding or embark on a career in agriculture of a future;

Whilst it is suggested that agricultural activity previously undertaken from site was unviable, land could be used for other purposes e.g. growing organic produce;

Dwellings of this type still required for retiring farmers;

Original agricultural justification only reason why dwelling was approved in this location;

Property sold to present owners at price which reflected agricultural tie - applicants were aware of tie when they purchased the property;

Removal of tie would considerably increase value of property putting it out of reach of agricultural workers - dwelling would possibly be bought as holiday home with reduced rates;

Compliance with agricultural restriction over period applicants have owned property is questioned - very limited agricultural activities undertaken during this time;

Maintenance of good farming practices required to maintain attractiveness of landscape designated as AONB - if tie removed will land fall into decay to detriment of AONB;

Questions raised relating to ostrich farming and general farming practices.

Letter received from the Local Councillor supporting the removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction. She comments that applicants have tried very hard to sell property both on the Island and mainland but that there is unfortunately insufficient land to make it is a viable proposition. She highlights difficulties faced by many farmers in recent years and even families who have farmed for generations on large previously profitable properties have found it difficult to continue. She considers that it may be timely to review the agricultural conditions on very small holdings.

4 letters received in support of application. One correspondent, an owner of a large holding, comments that the farming activities undertaken by them are not sufficient to support two people, one of them being forced to seek employment elsewhere. Furthermore, they comment that it would be impossible to earn a living from limited acreage available to the applicants.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The dwelling was originally permitted as an exception to policies which would generally resist further development in such locations on grounds that the submission was accompanied by information which demonstrated that there was an essential agricultural need. Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that there is no longer a need for a dwelling for somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the holding within their control.

In the report which accompanied the application, the author highlights the factors which contribute to the difficulty in operating a viable farm business from the land and achieving sufficient income for the applicants. These include the limited area of land forming the holding, exposed location and topography, difficulties in satisfying environmental impact regulations and nitrate vulnerable zone regulations, location of site within a high quality landscape and the fact the land is subject to a lease from the National Trust with restrictive covenants. The value of the landscape and the regulations referred to would clearly present difficulties in operating an intensive agricultural activity on the land. However, occupation of the dwelling by person solely, mainly or last working in the locality in agriculture would satisfy the requirements of the condition and the income need not be derived solely from the land which presently forms the applicants holding.

The report which accompanied the application also included details of an examination as to whether the farmhouse could be occupied by other qualifying individuals. For this purpose, the applicants consultant has acknowledged that the locality includes the whole of the Isle of Wight. Exercises carried out to determine the demand from other qualifying occupants has included the marketing of the property since February 2001 with a variety of agents. This exercise has failed to attract a buyer for the property who would satisfy the occupancy restriction. A postal survey of farmers has also been undertaken with letters sent to 119 farmers on the Isle of Wight. Only 16 responses were received as a result of this exercise, 15 expressing no need for the house either to buy or rent, and one giving a qualified response although, despite further enquiry, the respondent declined to make any offer either to rent or buy the property.

The removal of an agricultural occupancy restriction is generally viewed as undermining rural restraint policies and, in areas where there is a demand for agricultural dwellings, it could be argued that any reduction in the supply of accommodation available to the farming community generally would create pressure elsewhere for new dwellings in the countryside. Circular 11/95 provides advice on factors which should be taken into account when dealing with a request to remove an occupancy restriction. In particular, the circular offers the following advice:

"Where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed, it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose."

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 also offers the following advice in this respect:

"Applications for the removal of occupancy conditions should be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the existing need for them bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in an area as a whole and not just the particular holding that is relevant."

The consultant engaged by the Authority to comment on the merits of the current application produced a report, the purpose of which was to consider whether the applicant has carried out a realistic assessment of the need for the agricultural dwelling. He advises that the marketing of the property, either for sale or for rent, is the single most important factor in determining the need for a dwelling for somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture. In considering the marketing of the property, either for sale or rent, it essential that the correct marketing price is used so that there is an adequate discount to reflect the agricultural occupancy condition. In this respect, the consultant has carried out an assessment of other properties which have been marketed in the area, several with agricultural occupancy restrictions. From this exercise, he considers that the evidence available in respect of agriculturally restricted properties which have either been successfully sold or that could have been sold had the vendor been prepared to accept an offer, clearly demonstrates that there is a demand for properly priced and properly marketed agriculturally tied properties on the Isle of Wight.

Having carried out a comparison of other properties in the area, he considers that Hermitage Court Farm has an unrestricted open market value of £450,000 and that, taking into account the agricultural occupancy condition, the property should be marketed for no more than £300,000. Therefore, whilst he acknowledges that the applicant has marketed the property for a significant period of time, he does not consider that the asking price of £365,000 adequately reflects the agricultural occupancy condition. As a result, he has concluded that the marketing campaign to date does not adequately demonstrate that there is no need for a dwelling to somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just on the subject holding.

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 in seeking to lift the occupancy restriction in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aims 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, particularly the advice of the agricultural consultant engaged by the Authority to consider the matter, I do not consider that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the agricultural occupancy restriction has outlived its usefulness and that there is no longer a need for the property for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the subject holding.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

It has not been adequately demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction that the dwelling is no longer required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry in the locality and, therefore, the removal of the condition would be contrary to policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/22128/B P/01117/02 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke East

Registration Date: 11/07/2002 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Gallantgreen Ltd

Outline for residential development

land north of Newport C of E Primary School, Kitbridge Road and south of, Petticoat Lane, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application relates to an important residentially allocated site which involves a number of complex issues needing Committee determination.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a major application received on 24 June 2002 and has taken 50 weeks to process. Application has gone beyond prescribed time limit due to negotiations with applicant's agents which involved drainage issues, but more particularly ecology issues involving English Nature, whose comments were received on 7 April 2003.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Three hectare, green field site, consisting of mixture of grassland with areas of scrub and trees with an overgrown pond adjacent the western boundary. Site is bisected by a wooded corridor (former railway track). There is a treed northern boundary abutting Petticoat Lane (FP211) and which provides direct pedestrian access to the western end of central Newport linking directly to Mill Street and Sainsbury's supermarket.

Petticoat Lane is treed on both sides and is directly to the south of the established residential development Sylvan Drive.

Abutting eastern boundary is a number of different land users being Unigate Dairies, former industrial land and recent cul-de-sac development (Churnwood Close) off Westminster Lane.

Adjacent southern boundary is Newport C of E Primary School, whilst abutting western boundary is the Carisbrooke Meadow development of Persimmon Homes which is currently under construction.

Application includes section of road which serves the Carisbrooke Meadow development and forms the extension of Sylvan Drive. It includes a short spur road off that extension which terminates at the western boundary at a point directly adjacent the pond as described above.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of the application site.

Adjoining Carisbrooke Meadow development to west, received outline consent November 1998 which was followed by a reserved matter consent for 203 houses in October 2000.

That part of the adjoining land to the east which was the former concrete products manufacturing plant of Westminster Lane received outline consent for twenty three houses in June 2000 with that consent being subject of a condition which required the road to serve that development to be constructed to the site boundary to give access to the site which is subject of the current application. The subsequent detailed application for 22 dwellings and two flats was never determined and has been finally disposed of.

Finally, the adjoining Churnwood Close which immediately abuts the south eastern corner of the site formed part of a larger development most of which was served off Westminster Lane and which was granted consent in November 1998 for four two storey blocks of four flats and thirty six houses.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is an outline application with all matters reserved seeking consent for the principle of residential development on the site.

Following the submission of the application additional information has been submitted in the form of a preliminary services report which covers surface water and foul drainage issues and a Great Crested Newt Mitigation Plan.

Additional information also includes a schedule of Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement which relates to the three following issues:

Great Crested Newt translocation.

Affordable housing.

Open space maintenance.

In support of the application, applicant's agent makes reference to the following:

Planning history of the surrounding sites.

Site's residential allocation in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Site's close location to Newport town centre thus providing opportunity to facilitate travel by more sustainable modes reducing the number and length of motorised trips.

The site also provides opportunities to enhance future connections through to Westminster Lane.

Proposal complies with UDP policies H1, H2 and H3 in terms of principle and Policy H6 in respect of high density development.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies 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.

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas and to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility, such as town centres etc.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Delivery of affordable housing 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.

Local Planning Policies

Site is allocated for residential development with relevant policy statement being quoted as follows:

"A number of sites totalling 7.28 hectares some with buildings nearing the end of their economic life are allocated for residential development. The employment uses on parts of the area are either constrained by their sites or may not prove to be good neighbours to recently introduced and proposed residential and educational uses in the locality and could be beneficially located to allocated employment sites. The access shall be from the road linking Sylvan Drive and Mountbatten Drive and shall allow for further access to the east for potential link to Hunnyhill. Vehicular access shall not be from Westminster Lane and a link to Drill Hall Road should be established."

Relevant local plan 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.

D3 - Landscaping.

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

H2 - Ensure that Large Residential Developments Contain a Variety of House Sizes and Types

H3 - Allocation of Residential Development Sites.

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of a Housing Scheme.

TR6 - Cycling and Walking.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

L10 - Open Space in Housing Developments.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodlands.

Reference is made to the recent Housing Needs Survey, the main conclusions of which are as follows:

Demand for rented accommodation.

Although there is a need in most Island settlements, the areas with the most need are Newport, Ryde, Shanklin/Lake/Sandown followed by Cowes.

Large proportion is for single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two/three bedroomed homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

Members will also be aware of recent Government statements which emphasises the need to deliver affordable housing in the southeast.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer suggests conditions should application be approved. He confirms his acceptance of the specific conditions relating to access arrangements, provision of cycle track, traffic calming, drainage and pedestrian link to southern boundary.

Council's Contaminated Land Officer suggests conditions on the basis that the site or part of the site is a former brick works.

Environment Agency recommends conditions related to surface water runoff and the submission of a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works.

Council's Ecology Officer's comments are summarised as follows:

There are a number of ecological issues in connection with the site with the main one being in respect of the pond being a breeding locality for Great Crested Newts.

Great Crested Newts are a European protected species under the Habitats Directive and also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 as amended. Such protection covers reckless damage or destruction of their breeding site or resting place.

He advises that applicant employ suitably qualified ecologist to carry out a thorough assessment of the pond and its environs with particular reference to presence of Great Crested Newts.

Time for such a survey is between February and end of June.

Further comment from the Ecology Officer as follows:

"Site is currently a pleasant rural area on the outskirts of Newport. It supports many features of ecological interest, namely a pond deriving from an old clay pit currently overgrown; a wooded corridor along the old railway track which traverses the site, areas of scrub and old trees; historically important trees on the earth bank adjoining Petticoat Lane; and semi-improved grassland which is currently unmanaged. It is a site which has high bio-diversity value and I would expect that this should be recognised in any development of the area.

My memo of 2 August 2002 refers to the Great Crested Newts. However, I would expect that any proposals for development of this site should be accompanied by a full ecological report of the site including opportunities to work with existing features of importance and incorporate wildlife friendly features within the design and landscaping of the new development."

Ecology Officer makes reference to the probability of a balancing pond and if so, the design and management of such a pond would be another important aspect to address within any scheme.

Following this advice, which was passed on to the applicant, a Great Crested Newt mitigation plan has been submitted and fully discussed with English Nature and their comments are summarised as follows:

Critical of report's assertion that the importance of the pond as a sustainable habitat for GCNs (Great Crested Newts) is limited. EN suggests that the pond is no less important than other ponds within the location which support this species. Reference made to five known sites for GCNs on Island with three having statutory protection but two are single ponds. GCNs are therefore considered rare species on the Isle of Wight.

It does not accept that a reason for translocation is that the pond is currently of low quality for efficient breeding of this species.

EN suggests that the mitigation being proposed is reasonable but is dependant on the management of the wider countryside. This relates to provision of hedges and appropriate management of surrounding ponds to allow metapopulation to function. In this regard they note that there appears to be no intention to manage the wider countryside for GCNs and therefore mitigation cannot be guaranteed.

Maintenance and monitoring of the proposed pond will require a long term commitment in terms of resources and time and EN are therefore pleased to note that developer will need to enter into a Section 106 Agreement prior to commencement of development.

Conclusion

"Taking into account the fact that the Isle of Wight Council have already given planning permission for developments which have and will ultimately result in the pond being unable to support breeding GCNs. I have concluded that mitigation proposed is the only alternative to secure the long term conservation of this part of the metapopulation of GCN at this site."

Following the submission of a preliminary services report both the Environment Agency and Southern Water were consulted and apart from confirming that their advice was sought in the preparation of that report they commented as follows:

Environment Agency stated that they were unclear as to the nature of the applicant's consultant's figure of 300 litres per second for the three hectare site. They consider that the applicant should provide detailed calculations at the design stage to inform the surface water drainage and associated design source control. They also recommend that several storm durations should be analysed including at least the 15, 30, 60 and 120 minute storm duration scenarios to determine the critical storm duration. This is considered essential to ensure receiving watercourses are not overloaded and that any downstream flooding is not exacerbated.

Southern Water confirm the following:

"The drainage for the site will drain to sewers with spare capacity and has been designed so as not to cause problems in the existing sewers in the area. If we consider that the drainage for the site needs to be strongly enforced we may ask for a planning condition on the detailed application consent.

As long as the on-line storage is designed in accordance with sewers for "adoption", we are prepared to adopt such systems. We would not adopt off-line attenuation."

Planning Policy Team Leader comments as follows with regard to the potential delay in delivering development as result of the Great Crested Newt issue:

"Your concern relates to the policy that the whole allocation which includes both sites refers to access being from the road linking Sylvan Drive and Mountbatten Drive. The allocation is also to make provision for access further to the east to link to Hunnyhill with the intention that the development would not be served from Westminster Lane which is considered inadequate for the potential traffic generation from the whole allocation.

With the development of Sainsbury's the road link east from the Newport Dairies site to Hunnyhill is largely in place and I consider that it would be reasonable for the Dairies site to be developed from this road providing that the layout will create the road link to the western boundary and the current application land and that this will eventually connect to the Sylvan Drive/Mountbatten Drive link road."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of five letters of comment and objection, from the Isle of Wight Animal Preservation and Action Group, Wight Wildlife, a Petticoat Lane resident, Kitbridge Enterprise Trust in Forest Road and a resident of Cowes. Points raised are summarised as follows and relate in the main to ecological issues:

Wight Wildlife does not object but confirm there is sufficient evidence available to confirm presence of Great Crested Newts.

The Isle of Wight Animal Preservation and Action Group make the following general comment:

Reference made to number of wild animals which inhabit this site including badgers, foxes and bats.

Concerned that proposal will result in substantial loss of trees, thus affecting wildlife habitat.

General concern at the level of development in terms of numbers of units and the likely disturbance that this will cause, with particular reference to effect on the use of Petticoat Lane.

The contents of the remaining letters reiterate the above in respect of landscape and ecology, requesting that the Planning Authority ensure enforcement of relevant policies relating to these matters are fully addressed and taken into account in the development of the site.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Implications with regard to crime and disorder in respect of this outline application are impossible to quantify. The Crime & Disorder Team has indicated they will wish to comment, once details of numbers of properties and layout are known.

EVALUATION

This application represents an unusual approach given that the site is residentially allocated in the Unitary Development Plan, which in itself has gone through the UDP procedures identifying this land as being suitable for such development. In view of the site's allocation the principle is clearly acceptable, the most important material issues will be those relating to controlling conditions which will influence the type of development which will take place on the site. The issues are summarised as follows:

1. Density, range of dwellings, sizes and types including provision of affordable housing.

2. Ecology issues, with particular reference to the presence of Great Crested Newts.

3. Landscaping, open space provision.

4. Highway and parking issues.

5. Drainage.

The location of this site makes it appropriate for high density development with particular reference to policies H2 and H6. I would expect this site to be developed at a higher density than the current Persimmon Homes development and should include a whole range of dwelling types including flats which would reflect the results of the Housing Needs Survey and satisfy a wider range of need. I would therefore consider it reasonable to apply an appropriate condition flagging-up the need for this type of development, with particular reference to number and range of dwellings to be constructed on the site.

With regard to the issue of affordable housing, again this site would be expected to provide full contribution in compliance with relevant policies. Also, it will be anticipated that this requirement would form part of the Section 106 Agreement which is considered will be the best method of dealing with this matter. Such a process is in line with general methods used by other Authorities and provides greater ensurance of deliverability of affordable housing.

The second issue of ecology, with particular reference to Great Crested Newts, has been the chief reason that this application has been delayed in processing through to determination. From the consultee advice Members will appreciate that the level of consultation which has taken place between the applicant's own consultants and English Nature and the significant implications which result in respect of development of this site. In view of the protected species status of Great Crested Newts, English Nature will insist that all reasonable steps are taken to secure their long term survival. In essence, the proposals are to create new receptor ponds, translocate the newts from the existing pond and then (and not before) close down the existing pond. From the above it will be noted that the receptor ponds on the adjoining land will need to mature before relocation of the Great Crested Newts can take place. Such a process is likely to take anything up to three years and therefore effectively development on the site could not take place within that period. In programme terms this breaks down as follows:

Pond will be created in early winter of year one allowing it to fill naturally with rainwater and settle down.

Plants and invertebrate populations will be established in year two.

The translocation of amphibians is proposed for February to October of year three.

One proviso is that it may take longer for the pond to establish in which case translocation will be delayed by a further year. It is important to appreciate that the pond on-site can only be filled in once the translocation operation is complete.

The above process will clearly affect the programme for development on this site and whilst it MIGHT be possible to carry out some phased development of the site it should be remembered that Great Crested Newts do not only use ponds but also use land up to 500 metres from the pond. Clearly such a situation will have an effect on deliverability of housing from this important allocated site. Another issue which has already been raised with the applicants is that the receptor ponds will require their own separate planning consent. The applicants advise that such an application will be submitted shortly in respect of this issue.

In terms of the Section 106 Agreement, again the applicants recognise that this issue will form the main subject of that Agreement and in this regard English Nature have helpfully suggested what clauses should be contained within the Agreement.

Great Crested Newts cannot be translocated to a receptor pond which already sustains a population of newts because the fine ecological balance will be altered adversely affecting both existing and relocated newts. Also, applicants would not have the right to introduce newts to ponds on other people's land.

With regard to other ecological issues, these can be covered by condition, particularly in respect of the need to retain trees and groups of trees with reference to the old railway track which traverses the site and the treed boundary and earth bank adjoining Petticoat Lane. I am also advised that there is a strong likelihood that the site could contain other protected species such as badgers etc. and therefore an appropriate condition should be applied covering this issue.

One of the results of the Preliminary Service Report is that it has indicated that the site will need some extensive surface water attenuation which will include the siting of an underground attenuation surface water tank in the south eastern corner of the site. Southern Water has identified that they would be willing to adopt this tank. Given that technically this is the only location for such a tank it would be logical for an element of open space to be provided in this position. This is not an ideal place to locate such an area for such spaces should be located as centrally as possible on the site to ensure equality of access for residents and therefore achieve the greatest benefit. The position of this open space will influence the layout hopefully creating development which provides natural surveillance over that open space. Fortunately this corner of the site would be expected to provide a pedestrian route to the south to link with other allocated residential land.

Secondly, in terms of the position of open space, any future layout would need to take full advantage of the wooded corridor along the old railway track which provides an obvious natural feature, with potential as open space and having dwellings laid out to ensure natural surveillance of that space.

Applicants have agreed in principle that on-site open spaces will be offered to the Council for adoption subject to financial arrangements, and if such adoption cannot be agreed then the developer would submit to the Council agreement proposals to ensure long term maintenance of the open space areas.

The second most important feature of the site is the treed boundary to Petticoat Lane and again I would suggest a condition requiring the specific retention of these trees, preferably ensuring that they are within public space as opposed to within individual gardens.

Highway Engineer has now submitted his detailed comments, however, he has suggested that this may be a site where a traffic impact study would be required. Such a study would be more appropriate when an overall density of development and road layout have been produced and therefore this issue can be covered by way of an advisory letter.

Application does indicate the existing road which has been constructed in respect of Persimmon Homes and provides access to the site as referred to in the policy statement. Applicants' agents have referred to one particular site to the east where consent has been granted for 24 units and to which linkage will need to take place via this application site. When and if that linkage does take place any access that may come off Westminster Lane would need to be closed off. Similarly a linkage would need to be provided in the north eastern area of the site, again along the eastern boundary ensuring access to the land further to the east, currently occupied by Unigate Dairies. Such an access would comply with the policy statement for the site and again could be covered by conditions.

Highway Engineer has also acknowledged the need for some pedestrian/cycleway link, possibly through to Westminster Lane and also making use of the former railway route which could be incorporated within any development to provide a link across the site between Petticoat Lane and the southern area, with particular reference to the primary school and providing a safe route to that school from the north. Again, this could be covered by way of condition. Other issues that could be covered by condition relate to an internal road layout which takes due account of traffic calming in compliance with 'Design Bulletin 32' and its companion guide 'Places, Streets and Movement'.

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 application 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 on 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.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that it is appropriate to deal with this outline application in the form suggested by both using conditions, Section 106 Agreements and advisory letters flagging up all the important issues which will need to be addressed in terms of the detail proposals. Applicants have submitted the application in this form for one sole reason, that being to obtain an outline planning consent which would, in their opinion, reinforce the comfort of the residential allocation. Given this approach I consider approval recommendation is appropriate.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (revised plans) (subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the following:

1. Great Crested Newt translocation - mitigation and compensation including:

Provision of ponds off site to replace the existing pond and safeguard the population of such pond on site (a) to the entire satisfaction of the Council and (b) before development commences.

2. Affordable housing

20% of the residential units built shall be social housing which shall be sold (a) to a registered social landlord at 50% of the market price for such dwellings and (b) prior to the occupation of 50% of the remaining residential units.

3. Open space maintenance

Before the occupation of any dwellings, to transfer open space areas to the Council and pay a commuted sum to the Council for the maintenance of such open spaces BUT in the event the landowner fails to agree a commuted sum with the Council, the landowner shall forever maintain said open spaces to the satisfaction of the Council.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The number and range of dwelling sizes and types to be constructed on the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as a reserved matter and shall be set at a density commensurate with the sites location in relation to the town centre.

Reason: To ensure efficient use is made of urban land in compliance with policy H2 (To Ensure that Large Residential Developments Contain a Variety of House Sizes and Types), and H6 (High Density Residential Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and policies contained within PPG3 - Housing March 2000.

No development shall commence on the site until a survey of the development site as existing shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority concurrently with the submission of the site layout drawings and including, as appropriate, the following information at a suitable scale:-

(a)Accurate location of all hedgerows, trees and groups of trees including crown spreads to be retained and to be removed along with schedule of their condition and necessary surgery work.

(b)Location and dimension of existing watercourses, drainage channels and the existing pond adjacent the western boundary with water invert and bank levels as appropriate.

(c)Details of any proposed alterations to existing ground levels within close proximity to hedgerows, trees and groups of trees to be retained.

(d)Details of the specification and position of any measures to be taken for the protection of any retained trees and damage before or during the course of development which with any such group protection being implemented prior to any other construction work being commenced.

(e)Erection of fencing for the protection of any retained trees being maintained until all construction works have been completed. Nothing shall be stored or placed in an area fenced in accordance with this condition and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

(f)All existing levels and existing boundary treatments.

Reason: To allow proper consideration of the impact of the proposed development on the amenity value of the site and ensure retention and protection of trees in the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and Policy C13 (Hedgerows) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall commence on site until a general ecological survey of the whole of the site has been carried out by an appropriate competent person with particular reference to badgers, red squirrels, bats species and any other protected species. Any such survey shall include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development and any appropriate alleviation measures shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority concurrently with the submission of the site layout drawings.

Reason: To enable proper consideration of the impact of the development and the contribution of nature conservation interests of the amenity of the area in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The layout of the dwellings/roads/footpaths/cycletracks shall be designed to avoid as far as possible the necessity for destroying trees.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the layout of roads and the location of buildings in relation to the existing trees and to ensure no trees are felled or damaged until such approval is given and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No existing trees, groups of trees or hedgerows on the site shall be removed or be subject of surgery work without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority and until compliance with conditions 5, 6 and 7 have taken place.

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

Following receipt of details as required in conditions 5, 6 and 7, all appropriate landscape features shall be retained for public amenity purposes and shall be indicated on any submitted plans for such use and none of the dwellings or roads shall be sited within any of these agreed amenity areas.

Reason: To ensure existing landscape features contribute to the landscape of any proposed development in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Any submitted layout plan shall ensure provision of open space/amenity land of an appropriate size and location and shall take account of existing landscape features. Any such provision of open space/amenity land shall be provided prior to occupation of a maximum of 80% of the total development with any such open space/amenity area being retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure an adequate provision of amenity land in the interests of the amenities of the area and occupiers of the development in compliance with Policy L10 (Open Space in Housing Developments) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The scheme required by condition 11 above shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the (public/buildings/ environment) when the site is developed.

Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13	Development shall not commence until the measures approved in the decontamination scheme have been implemented. Reason: In the interests of the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and to comply with Policy P3 (Restoration of Contaminated Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01

15	Timing of occupation - J10

Access to the site shall be from the west and from the road linking Sylvan Drive and Mountbatten Drive being part of the existing Carisbrooke Meadow development. Also the layout of the site shall allow for the possible future extension of the road into land which adjoins the eastern boundary with one connection point being within the north eastern area and the second connection point relating to approved development on the site of the former concrete products manufacturing plant off Westminster Lane under reference (TCP/4676U/P1529/99). Any such road shall be constructed to the site boundary to the standard equivalent to the standard required for adoption by the Highway Authority.

Reason: In order not to prejudice the future development of adjoining land in compliance with Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Any submitted scheme shall make provision for a cycle way/footpath link between Petticoat Lane and the south western corner of the site adjacent Newport C of E Primary School.

Reason: To ensure safe movements for cyclists and pedestrians in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Waling) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The internal road pattern within the development shall be aligned to provide for traffic calming measures to restrain vehicle speeds designed in such a manner to ensure that any non-access traffic is deterred from making use of the road system as a through route with any such road design complying with the advice contained in Design Bulletin 32 (Residential Roads and Footpaths - Second Edition) and Places, Streets and Movements - a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32. Any such scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed road scheme.

Reason: To ensure the internal road layout both within and through the development in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and where appropriate capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Such scheme shall comply with the advice contained in the preliminary services report dated 18 October 2002 which accompanies the application. Any such foul and surface water disposal system shall include 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 overloading of the existing system. Arrangements shall be made for the adoption and future maintenance of any attenuation measures and no dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed and such adoption procedures have been completed.

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

The surface water drainage system for the site must be capable of delivering the estimated 1% probability storm runoff to storage. The system must be capable of storing the runoff from the 1% event restricting the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a green field site. Any storm drainage calculations should analyse several storm durations including at least 15, 30, 60 and 120 minute storm duration scenarios.

Reason: To prevent flooding in compliance with Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Any such approved layout shall provide for a pedestrian link in the south eastern corner within the southern boundary with such link being terminated to the site boundary to a standard equivalent to the standard required for adoption by the Highway Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure a link to the adjoining residentially allocated land to the south in compliance with Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That a letter be sent advising the applicants that any detail or reserved matter application may be subject to a requirement for a traffic impact assessment. The necessity for such a traffic impact assessment will be dependant upon the density and type of road layout and the need for any such assessment should be subject of pre-application negotiations in order to establish a) its need and b) that it accompanies any submitted application.

TCP/22975/D P/00573/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Pan

Registration Date: 26/03/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: The Newport Meeting Room Trust

Retention of external lighting

Christian Meeting Room, Buckbury Lane, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject of a number of representations from local residents and because of sensitive location of site it is considered Committee determination is appropriate.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Case Officer's work programme results in 10 June meeting being first available meeting for consideration. Eleven weeks will have elapsed since application's receipt on 24 March 2003.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a recent development in respect of a building to be used as a Meeting Room for public Christian worship on land to the east of Buckbury Lane and south of the junction of Long Lane with Buckbury Lane. Site is located on the edge of Newport with Buckbury Lane itself being a gravel access road serving established residential development on its western side. The junction with Long Lane also serves a metal surface road known as Buckbury Heights which also serves established residential development.

Site formerly part of an open field which has now been enclosed to accommodate the abovementioned development which is virtually complete. Site falls away from Long Lane with there being a uniform gradient towards the southwest. The building itself has been located in the lower part of the site in the form of a single storey structure. Remaining area of the site is in the form of a landscaped car parking area accessed off a new roadway. Development has also resulted in an improved visibility on the Long Lane junction.

RELEVANT HISTORY

December 1999 outline planning approval granted for building for use as a Meeting Room for public Christian worship with access off Buckbury Lane. That outline consent was subject of number of conditions, most significant of which is as follows:

12. The meeting room hereby approved shall not open for use before 06:00 hours on Sundays and 09:00 hours on weekdays including Saturdays or remain open after 22:00 hours on any day including Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties.

In April 2001 reserved matters approved for a Meeting Room for public Christian worship with access off Buckbury Lane.

It is the abovementioned consents which have been implemented in respect of the development on site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for a total of fifteen 150 watt down light fittings four of which are wall mounted on the existing building and the remaining eleven are freestanding being mounted on six metre high galvanised steel columns sited throughout the car park area. The down light fittings are finished in black epoxy powder coated paint and provide a maximum illuminance of 50 lux. Application accompanied by calculations and illuminance which ranges from a minimum of 5.6 lux to maximum of 34.8 lux. Maximum illumination is within the central area of the car park with illumination reducing in its intensity towards the perimeters.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Most relevant policy is as follows:

D14 - Light Spillage.

Planning applications for development which includes or requires external lighting when approved will be subject to conditions to ensure that:

a) the lighting scheme proposed is the minimum required for the task,

b) light spillage is minimised, particularly skyward,

c) there will be no dazzling or distraction to drivers using nearby highway,

d) lighting is screened from view from the coastal estuarine and navigable waters,

e) on the edge of settlements or in the countryside the lighting is screened from view from neighbouring countryside,

f) it is designed so as not to unreasonably affect neighbouring properties.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Council's Lighting Engineer has carefully considered the information provided in respect of this application and is satisfied that the fittings for this site are acceptable.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of eleven letters of objection, six from residents of Buckbury Lane, two from residents of Buckbury Heights, one from the CPRE, one from a Sandown resident and one from a Councillor. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Lighting extends over adjoining residential land and property and causes a light nuisance to the occupiers of those properties, with particular reference to Buckbury Lane.

The height and number of lighting columns is considered to be excessive bearing in mind they are only required to light up a car park.

Any lighting of the car park should be limited to those affixed to the building.

Design of the light fittings is box-like in appearance and is therefore inappropriate and out of character with the countryside location.

The level of lighting when linked to the high fencing around the car park is too urban in appearance and therefore out of character.

Most objectors accept that some lighting is required but this should be in the form of a lower number of columns and a lesser lighting intensity.

The level of lighting and lighting columns was not envisaged when consent was granted for the overall scheme.

The building itself has sufficient lighting within it and affixed to it without the need for this level of freestanding lighting.

The CPRE have carefully considered the lighting installation and the impression is that the necessary studies of overspill, downward direction baffles on the lighting units and shielding by planting, have been addressed. They consider, however, care needs to be taken to ensure neighbouring houses are not affected, have been consulted and raise no objection to the retention of the lighting.

One letter of support received from a user of the Meeting Room stating the following:

"We are one of several families with small children. It is essential that adequate lighting is provided in the car park for safety reasons. The down lighters installed are most efficient and should be retained. Some lights nearest the houses will only be on for shorter periods".

Whilst recognising there may be some concerns that this is a retrospective application Members are reminded that they need to consider the application entirely on its merits by applying the relevant policies and remembering that having approved this scheme which obviously included provision for car parking then there was a strong likelihood that car parking would need to be lit.

Applicants, in submitting this application, have accompanied it by necessary technical data which the Council's own Lighting Engineer has clearly indicated as being acceptable. The test, however, is whether or not the scheme satisfies the caveats attached to Policy D14.

The light fittings themselves have been designed to be "down lighters", with that design ensuring that the light itself is virtually enclosed in a box screened on all four sides ensuring any lighting is discharged downwards avoiding any light spillage in a skyward direction.

The Highway Engineer by raising no objection has not identified any problems from this lighting scheme in respect of distraction to drivers etc.

Because the car park is on land which is falling away from the main road (Long Lane) and is reasonably well screened when viewed from that road then the impact is localised to Buckbury Lane and has little effect on the wider rural area.

The scheme has been subject of extensive landscaping, particularly along the perimeters and whilst this planting is immature at this stage in time it will provide extensive screening to the perimeters reducing light spillage and providing a softening effect to the development as a whole.

Two main issues to consider are whether or not the lighting scheme is excessive and therefore despite the care that has been taken in the design of the light fittings, still results in some spillage, particularly towards the west and therefore affecting the properties in Buckbury Lane. It is unlikely that the light spillage towards Buckbury Lane is any more than that which would be experienced if street lighting were provided down that lane. Members will be aware that lighting is encouraged by Crime Prevention Officers in any area which has a public use. The following quotation from "Places, Streets and Movement" a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32 confirms this.

"Lighting levels within a development should create a secure environment. Dark

corners or alleyways should be avoided ...."

It also acknowledges that:

"Lighting is not always welcome. Light spillage can be detrimental to certain areas, particularly in the countryside, so lighting levels should be gauged to suit the local context ......"

Rather than considering refusing this application and taking enforcement proceedings a compromise could well be to apply a condition placing a time constraint on the use of the three lighting columns nearest the western boundary, i.e. nearest Buckbury Lane. This would help reduce the perceived environmental impact of the light spillage on these properties to a limited period only. It should be remembered that these lights will only be used periodically, mainly obviously in the winter months, with the declared times of uses for this building being as follows:

Sunday Breaking of bread (Holy Communion) 6.00 a.m. - 30-40 persons, eight vehicles.

Bible reading and Gospel preaching 9.00 a.m. or 4.00 p.m. - 150 persons, 25 vehicles.

Most weekdays Prayer and Bible reading 7. p.m. - 60 persons, 15 vehicles.

Saturday Bible reading 9.00 a.m. once per month - 150 persons, 25 vehicles.

Where reference is made to 150 persons and 25 vehicles applicants indicate that on these occasions a coach is sometimes used for visitors.

Second issue is the height and appearance of the columns. It is assumed that the height, i.e. six metres, is necessary to ensure maximum spread of light given that the light fittings themselves are designed for down lighting purposes only. Presumably a lower height column would by necessity require a light fitting which provided a greater spread of light and would not be so well screened in itself. It is accepted that the appearance of the columns are somewhat stark, however, the area itself has, because of its location, a number of telegraph/electricity poles which are more prominent than these columns. I do not consider the columns themselves are sufficiently detrimental to the character of the general locality to warrant a refusal in this case.

In support of their application the applicants confirm that consideration was given to low level lighting but this was dismissed as being unsuitable for safety reasons. Applicants have achieved an average luminance of 20 lux being the minimum acceptable commensurate with safety, particularly when taking into consideration the number of children which will be around together with vehicle parking and movement. They also assure me that this lighting will only be used when the building is in use, before, during and after services.

In terms of light spillage, they confirm that down light fittings have been utilised to minimise their impact, with any spillage beyond the site boundary being further screened from the neighbouring properties by the six metre amenity strip and substantial tree and hedgerows to Buckbury Lane.

The importance of the landscaped boundary between this site and Buckbury Lane must be stressed. Apart from the existing hedgerow the approved scheme deliberately provided for a six metre wide amenity strip between the eastern boundary of Buckbury Lane and the boundary to the car park. A hedge has been newly planted as part of the landscaping scheme on the inside of that western boundary along with other tree planting. This should, when matured, provide additional screening over and above that which is already provided along this boundary. It should also be remembered that much of the car parking area in the western half of the car park is in the form of a reinforced grass areas suitable for use for overflow parking only and therefore the more regular area for car parking is more to the east, away from Buckbury Lane. Such situation reinforces the suggested approach in controlling the level of lighting in the western half of the car park.

Given the above assessment and whilst recognising the concerns of local residents I am of the view that approval is appropriate in this case subject to the appropriate condition being applied.

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 application 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 on 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 DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that the retention of the external lighting is acceptable on grounds that neither the columns nor the type of lighting will have a sufficient impact on the area which would be contrary to Policy D14 and would therefore warrant a sustainable reason for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Lights hereby approved shall only be used when the Meeting Room is in use and in any event no later than 30 minutes after closure or 30 minutes before opening of the Meeting Room.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The three freestanding columns closest to the western boundary and identified as columns A, B and C on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice, shall only be used during the periods when the "reinforced grass" overflow parking area is in use and at no other time.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/24597/B P/01856/02 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 21/01/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Sauven

Demolition of dwelling; construction of replacement dwelling

The Boat House 65, Marsh Road, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Mundy has indicated during a recent telephone conversation that he would not be prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken twenty weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to Officer workload and discussions with applicants to resolve a number of issues, including revised design and consultations with Environment Agency and English Nature.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land located to rear of properties located at eastern end of and fronting Marsh Road. Application site is relatively level and is bounded to north by sea wall, to which public have access, and to east by public footpath beyond which land rises quite steeply and is densely landscaped. Existing dwelling within site is relatively small offering single storey accommodation only and is finished to external elevations with white plastic cladding under a cedar shingle roof. Parking area to property is located on western side of dwelling accessed over a shared driveway off Marsh Road.

Area to west is characterised predominantly by single storey chalet style structures whilst to east on Solent View Road buildings are of more traditional construction offering for most part two storey accommodation.

RELEVANT HISTORY

LBC/24597 - P/00064/02 - Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for continued use of property as permanent residential dwelling was approved in May 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Permission is sought for demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of a replacement dwelling.

Plans which accompanied original submission show dwelling providing two storey accommodation comprising kitchen/lounge area, dining room, study, utility room and w.c. at ground floor level with three bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom/w.c. at first floor level. Accommodation at first floor level would be provided within roof space of building. Detached garage would be located on southern side of and linked to dwelling with covered walkway.

Application was accompanied by a design brief for the replacement dwelling, in which the applicant comments that whilst site is not within area subject of the Gurnard Marsh Design Brief, he has tried to remain sensitive to it in the submission. In this respect, he describes the dwelling as "a simple white painted, wooden clad beach house, with clean lines."

In the design brief applicant indicates that he is employed in the wind industry and remains passionate about the role of renewable energy and sustainable practices in the care of the planet. He goes on to explain that the proposal provides him with the opportunity to create as environmentally compassionate home as he practically can, while maintaining an outwardly simple beach house. The design brief provides details of the low energy/zero energy concept which he has adopted for the project. In this respect, the design specification would incorporate thermal ratings above the minimum UK requirements and energy saving would also be achieved by use of low energy devices throughout the house, including lighting, and a computer controlled highly efficient condensing boiler would provide efficient heating swapping automatically between solar water heating supply, PV solar electrical power and gas for cold cloudy days. Submitted plans indicate that passive solar water heating tubes would be installed on southern plane of roof to garage and walkway between garage and the dwelling would be covered with photo voltaic cells. Proposal would also incorporate a grey water system with rainwater collected off the roof, stored and used for a number of non-drinking uses in the house e.g. toilet flushing water.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located immediately adjacent but outside the development boundary defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Site is in area identified by Environment Agency as a tidal floodplain. Relevant policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D13 - Energy Conservation.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Environment Agency initially requested that determination of the application was deferred until such time that the applicant provided a satisfactory flood risk assessment. Following receipt of flood risk assessment submitted by applicant, Environment Agency raises no objection to proposal but advises that applicant should be made aware that there is a risk of flooding to the property in extreme tidal events. In addition, even though above flood level, development is within flood plain and may have problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flood events. Environment Agency indicates that their comments have already been copied to applicant.

English Nature confirms that site is adjacent but outside designated boundary of the Solent Maritime Candidate Special Area of Conservation and considers that proposal is unlikely to have significant effect on the interest features of the designated site, either alone or in combination and, therefore, does not require appropriate assessment in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994.

Southern Water have submitted comments accompanied by drainage plan showing approximate position of public sewer within vicinity of and crossing application site. They advise that the exact position of the public sewer must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised and that no new building or tree planting should be located over or within a minimum of three metres of the public sewer. They confirm that the point and details of the proposed connection to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water Services Ltd and also that there are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site. They would not want surface water discharged to the public sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. In subsequent comments, Southern Water advise that they would not normally object in principle to diversion of sewers that were closer than the required three metres. The detail of any diversion would have to be agreed by developers with Southern Water.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council object to application on grounds that proposal contravenes single storey specification laid down in the Gurnard Marsh Design Brief and that it constitutes overdevelopment, out of keeping with surrounding properties.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters received from local residents (two from same household) objecting to proposal and/or expressing concern on the following grounds:

Size of dwelling - proposal pushes existing building line out in three directions.

Height of proposed building is considerable - raised to avoid flooding and incorporating two storey accommodation - would be overpowering.

Overdevelopment of site out of keeping with surrounding buildings - single storey building would be more in keeping.

Proposal will place greater pressure on vehicle parking.

Site has flooded in recent years due to failure of pumps intended to clear surface water runoff.

Surface water drains run under application site - proposed property covers some manholes - access to pipes needs to be maintained.

Proposed dwelling is nearly 300% larger than the existing building on the site.

Ground stability implications of developing site in coastal flood risk area.

Proposal would set precedent for replacement of chalets with luxury homes changing unique character of the marsh.

Whilst objecting to current proposal, one resident indicates that they are pleased to see the property being developed and to be kept up to date and in good state of repair.

One objector requests that Committee visit the site and request that their letter is copied and shown to Members.

Two letters received from local residents in support of proposal raising the following issues:

Development would be of benefit to area - maintaining beach house theme enhancing the area.

Promotes low energy concept encouraged by Government.

Modern resident, either permanent or holiday maker needs larger accommodation.

Proposal combines needs of resident with needs of locality.

Applicant clearly aware of planning brief for area and has included many environmentally friendly aspects which should be encouraged.

Sympathetic to character of area providing inspiration for others.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether replacement of the existing dwelling as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether size, design and general appearance of building is appropriate for locality or would detract from character of area and amenities of neighbouring properties.

Following the grant of a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the existing property as a permanent residential dwelling, I am satisfied that the site has an established residential use and, therefore, construction of a single replacement dwelling on the site is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to the proposal being satisfactory in all other respects, including design, impact on character of area and effect on amenities of neighbouring properties.

Site is located outside development boundary where restrictive policies apply to further development. However, Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan provides details of proposals which may exceptionally be permitted, including a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling or the acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage or group of houses. In this instance, the existing dwelling provides quite limited accommodation comprising an open plan kitchen/lounge/dining area, two bedrooms and bathroom/w.c. Applicant has requested that the following considerations be taken into account:

The size of the new building's footprint represents a smaller percentage with respect to the land than the vast majority in the area and is believed to be appropriate infill.

The property proposed will be in keeping with a wooden beach house and enhance the existing visual appearance especially from the footpath which runs along the fore shore.

The size of the property is modest for a family home and has been reduced in size as a result of advice from a Planning Officer.

Every effort has been made to maintain views of the sea from the three properties that lie to the south of the proposed building and position has been selected in consultation with two neighbouring properties most affected.

The neighbouring building to the west, also on the seafront, is a lofted dwelling and the next building to the east is a two storey building, both having greater volume than the proposed building.

It is intended to construct the building as close to a zero energy building as is practical by using photo voltaics, passive solar and water heating and direct solar heat gain.

Whilst I consider that dwelling is larger than would normally be approved for a replacement dwelling in the countryside, in this instance, the property forms part of a small group of dwellings and is not in an isolated rural location. Having regard to this factor and the presence of an existing dwelling on the site, I consider that proposal can be justified as acceptable infilling within a small group of houses, in accordance with policy H9.

Area to west of application site is characterised for most part by single storey timber chalet style buildings while the properties immediately adjacent the application site generally have more substantial footprints and are of more permanent construction. Properties immediately to south of application site provide single storey accommodation only while property to west, closer to fore shore, is a chalet style bungalow providing accommodation within the roof space. Area beyond adjacent properties to east and southeast of application site comprises more traditional development both in terms of construction and layout, including two storey buildings within quite substantial plots.

The application site is excluded from the areas identified in the Gurnard Marsh Design Brief which have quite specific characteristics. Nevertheless, I consider that applicant has attempted to reflect the overall character of the area and seaside location in the submitted design. In particular, the building would incorporate timber cladding to the elevations, reflecting the appearance of the chalets to the west, and, whilst providing first floor accommodation, the eaves line would be similar to that of a single storey building. In this respect, following negotiations with the applicants, further plans have been submitted showing a further reduction in the height of the eaves and the pitch of the roof, resulting in an overall reduction in the height of the dwelling of approximately 900 mm. In addition, roof projection to front of building has been cut back reducing length of ridge by approximately one metre and resulting in an overall reduction in the general roof scape. In terms of the design and general appearance of the building, I am satisfied that the dwelling would not be out of keeping with or detract from the character of the locality. In particular, I do not consider that proposed building would be dissimilar in scale and mass to cafe building located to west of site and would be smaller than some of the more traditional dwellings located to east and southeast of the site.

Building has clearly been designed to take full advantage of location of site with main windows, serving kitchen, living room and main bedroom, in northern elevation overlooking Solent. These windows would look out over applicant's property and would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Whilst a number of windows would also be provided in the side and rear (south) elevations of the building, having regard to the style of these openings, the rooms they would serve and the position and orientation of the building in relation to neighbouring properties, I am satisfied these would not result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring sites. However, raised walkway along rear of the building immediately abuts the boundary with neighbouring property and would have potential to result in overlooking and loss of privacy. I consider that this could be overcome by erection of an obscure glazed or opaque screen and, should Members be minded to approve application, I would recommend a condition in this respect.

Proposed dwelling would occupy only small proportion of the application site and I do not consider that proposal could justifiably be resisted on grounds of overdevelopment. I am satisfied that adequate parking could be provided within the site to serve a dwelling of this size and, having regard to the status of the existing building within the site, as a permanent residential dwelling, I do not consider that proposal would result in significant increase in vehicle movements to and from the site or that refusal on grounds of highway safety and other related matters would be sustainable.

Concern has been raised by objectors regarding potential ground instability problems, particularly due to location of site within a coastal flood risk area. This site is outside the area covered by the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study and is not located on a coastal slope where slope stability could pose a potential problem. Following consultations, the Council's Senior Structural Engineer has confirmed that site is not within area of known or potential ground stability and does not consider it necessary to require the applicant to submit a full ground stability report. Furthermore, he advises that the suggestion of the presence of "blue slipper" clay is not considered geologically possible in this area although a very thin seam of blue clay/limestone, just above the Bembridge limestone has been recorded along this coastline. As far as he is concerned, site is relatively level and fronted on northern boundary by coastal footpath/sea wall and, therefore, coastal erosion is not a concern. Location of site and ground conditions will clearly have influence on the foundation design, although he is satisfied that this matter can be dealt with when considering application for Building Regulations approval when further information will be required in this respect.

From the information provided by Southern Water and position of manhole covers within site, applicant should be able to determine route of public sewers which run through the site. In the event that building projects over pipes or encroaches within the three metres clearance required by Southern Water, it would be necessary for the applicant to enter into discussions with them to overcome this problem. This may necessitate applicant reaching agreement with Southern Water over the diversion of the public sewer at his own expense or may ultimately prevent the development from proceeding. With regard to surface water disposal, having regard to location of site within a flood plain, soakaways would clearly be ineffective. However, I do not consider that redevelopment of the site would be likely to result in a significant increase in surface water flows and it should be noted that applicant intends to install a storage facility for surface water to be reused for non-drinking purposes within the dwelling. Therefore, implementation of a grey water system would provide method of attenuation and management for disposal of surface water.

Whilst not an overriding factor in considering the application, Members will note from the information provided by the applicant that the proposal incorporates the concepts of renewable energy and would result in a low/zero energy dwelling. It is understood, following discussions with applicant that the photo voltaic cells and solar panels he intends to install, would, by themselves, provide sufficient electricity and hot water for use in the dwelling during off peak periods. Therefore, I consider that proposal would result in a dwelling which would conserve and make efficient use of energy resources in accordance with Policy D13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal to construct a replacement dwelling within the site is acceptable in principle and that, in this particular instance, the size, scale, design and general appearance of the proposed dwelling is appropriate for the locality and will not detract from the character of the area or amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Construction of the dwelling 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.

Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the timber cladding to the external elevations of the building shall be finished and thereafter retained and maintained in a colour stain/paint to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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.

All material resulting from the demolition of the existing dwelling and excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to the occupation of the dwelling unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, an opaque/obscure glazed screen shall be erected along the southern perimeter of the decking on the southern side of the dwelling in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such screening shall have a minimum height of 1.8 metres above the decking and shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) 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, E and F) 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.

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

Prior to development hereby approved commencing, details of the method of disposal/storage of surface water, incorporating the principles of a grey water system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal satisfies principles of sustainable development and to ensure adequate means of surface water disposal/management in accordance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

9	Provision of turning area - K40

10	Use of domestic garage - no conversion - K25

The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 2 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes.

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

10.

TCP/25508 P/00628/03 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural

Registration Date: 07/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Vectis Motocross Club

Continued use of land for motocross; upgrading of track & facilities

land opposite Gore Cemetery south west of Arreton Cross, Downend Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The application has been delayed in order to achieve results of consultations.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A tract of former agricultural land comprising 16.6 hectares, overall dimensions of approximately 400 metres x 500 metres located on the west side of the A3056, to the west of Arreton Cross. The land slopes in a north west to south easterly direction reaching beyond the 85 metre contour in the extreme north western corner dropping down to below the 45 metre contour near the south western corner at the frontage with the A3056. The land is undulating but, in the main, forms a bowl facing the south westerly direction.

The site has a frontage to the A3056 of about 450 metres, half of that frontage is several metres above road level with a steep embankment immediately adjoining the road. The land falls in the north east corner to a height little above road level, the A3056 which marks the eastern boundary of the site. On the opposite side of that road is Gore Cemetery which lies directly opposite to the section of the site which is accessible off the road. Beyond Gore Cemetery in a south easterly direction is open, agricultural land.

The south boundary of the site is marked by a wire fence, beyond which is further agricultural land to and beyond Merstone Cross. The western boundary is marked by public footpath - A25 which runs from the A3056, to the west of Merstone Lane, past the application site rising from approximately the 70 metre contour to approximately the 90 metre contour when it links with Burnt House Lane by the A28 Bembridge Trail and the A28 marks the northern boundary of the site in a sunken lane to its junction with Arreton Cross in the north eastern extent of the site.

The site is set within a predominantly agricultural landscape and only few residential properties exist, the closest being around Arreton Church and the Arreton Craft Centre, Arreton Manor, and to the north west, Great East Standen Manor, off Burnt House Lane.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None although it is apparent that the site has been used over a period of some years as a motocross site, the grant of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 which allows for the use of the land for a total of 14 days in any year.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning consent is sought for the continued use of the site for motocross racing which will mean the retention of the track, the formation of "jumps" which are engineering operations in the form of land moulding and to use the land for a period in excess of 14 days each year. In support of the application the agents have included further information stating that the site has been identified by the ACU (Auto Cycle Union) as meeting their criteria for staging a round of the National Motocross Championship.

It is stated by the applicants that this, single (but possibly annually occurring) event is scheduled for Sunday June 29 2003 which will bring with it national advertising and media coverage including Sky television and various other benefits to the local tourism industry.

They advise that the event will be managed by fully trained and qualified ACU staff whose management responsibility will include that noise control is maintained at source (i.e. motocross bikes have silencers fitted); that effective dust control is maintained; a sound dampening screen would be erected at the start position; toilet facilities to be brought in to suit the event size with other services such as mains electricity and mains water supply provided on site. Confirmation that there is no intention to erect permanent buildings on the site. It is intended to use the track throughout the year for local races, seeking twenty Saturday or Sunday uses for events and practice limiting the hours of 9 am to 6 pm and for two days a week, two riders would use the track for practice purposes for a maximum of four hours between 12:00 and 16:00 hours. The site will be secured by boundary fencing and gated so as to prevent unauthorised use.

The applicants confirm their activities will take place under the control of the governing body, the Auto Cycle Union.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Unitary Development Plan

Subject to countryside policy C1 and C2 as the site abuts an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; C11 as it abuts a SINC; to leisure and sport policies L2 and L9. The site is unnotated; it is outside but abuts the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the site is outside but abuts (on opposite side of road) the Arreton Conservation Area and, abuts a site of interest to nature conservation, located to the north west, noted for its heathland significance. It also abuts the byway A28 which marks the northern boundary.

Unitary Development Plan Policies

"C1 Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area".

"C2 Within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and:

a) meet a proven national need where there are no alternative sites; or

b) specifically involve the maintenance or development of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and/or be for the benefit of the local rural economy and the people who live there; or

c) involves the low-key improvement of an area used for informal leisure and recreation; or

d) reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development, or

e) are within a defined development envelope."

"C11 When approving proposals for development affecting SINCs, RIGGs and Local Nature Reserves or other locally identified designated areas, the Council will require the retention and management of the important wildlife habitats and features, within and adjacent to the development site."

"L2 Planning proposals for new buildings, extensions or improvements to formal sports facilities, including all-weather, floodlit pitches, will be acceptable in principle provided that they are located within or adjacent to, existing settlement boundaries and:

a) there are no unresolvable traffic problems;

b) conditions limiting hours of use are applied where necessary;

c) they do not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity."

"L9 Planning applications for the use of land for noisy sports may be permitted where:

a) they do not adversely impact on sensitive areas, including the coast and inland waterways;

b) they have a main road location and adequate access;

c) they do not adversely affect nearby residents.

Existing mineral workings should be considered as a first option where the proposal will not prejudice the long-term extraction of material. In some cases, a temporary or time limited consent may be considered appropriate."

Planning Policy Guidance

PPG 7 (The Countryside and Rural Economy) acknowledges:

"...tourism, sport and recreation play important parts in development and diversification of the rural economy, but it can also damage landscape and heritage upon which it depends, further acknowledges that there is a need to reconcile such proposals with the need to protect the landscape, wildlife, habitats and historic features."

PPG 17 Planning for New Open Space and Sports and Recreational Facilities.

"General Principles

20. In identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities, local authorities should:

(i) promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities;

(ii) locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability;

(iii) avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity;

(iv) improve the quality of the public realm through good design;

(v) look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas;

(vi) add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities;

(vii) carefully consider security and personal safety especially for children;

(viii) meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to greenfield sites;

(ix) consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or recreational use, weighing this against alternative uses;

(x) assess the impact of new facilities on social inclusion; and

(xi) consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists."

PPG 24 (Planning and Noise) refers to noisy development and states:

"Nevertheless, Local Planning Authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance, they should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions... the impact of noise from sport, recreation and entertainment will depend to a large extent on frequency of use and the design of facility."

In more detailed advice, PPG 24 continues by suggesting Local Planning Authorities should take account of how frequently noise will be generated, how disturbing it will be and balance enjoyment of participants against nuisance to other people. Furthermore it suggests that development could be subject to limit on hours of use and control of noise emissions (including public address systems) during unsocial hours.

Guidance produced by Hampshire and Isle of Wight planning officers (September 1992) in respect of noisy sports suggests determining criteria should be proximity to residential property; prominence of site and visual impact; ecological impact; safe and satisfactory vehicular access and avoidance of historic landscapes.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer comments as follows:-

" Since the application being advertised this department has received requests for service from a number of local residents, these have resulted in noise recordings being taken from a nearby residential premises over the weekend of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th May 2003; and additional visits being made whilst the track has been operational. The visits have provided evidence that this activity has significant and detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring area, and neighbouring residential premises in particular.

The control over noise emanating from the site by methods other than the restriction on use is considered to be impracticable due to the topology of the area, the levels of noise being generated at the source, and the proximity of the residential properties. This would make the use of natural attenuation due to distance ineffective and the construction of noise barriers impracticable.

With this in mind I have reviewed the initial application submitted, and the additional information provided in a letter from Mazillius Chatwin dated 7 May 2003, and would recommend that in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties that conditions are applied to any approval."

Highway Engineers recommend conditions if approved.

County Ecology Officer acknowledges that development would be an intensification of a noisy sport attracting high visitor numbers in a rural area which will inevitably result in increased disturbance in the countryside. Also raises concern over the byway A28 which is an ancient, sunken lane with a herb rich woodland flora and long established badger setts and that it will be under increasing recreational pressure. He concludes that a landscaping scheme should be an important component of any approval. This should address the need to plant up buffer strips adjoining public rights of way and replace a roadside hedge. This may necessitate moving the operation southward off the brow of the hill, but this may provide some small assistance in reducing sound penetration. Fenced boundary should be placed such that new planting lies outside the public areas.

AONB Officer acknowledges site position outside but abutting the AONB. Confirms track is visible and has an impact as seen from the AONB. Raises concern over increase in use and level and frequency of noise generated which will have an impact on the enjoyment of the AONB. Raises concern over projected levels of traffic using the site and to the use of the Byeway Open to All Traffic (A28) which could lead to conflicts with existing users and an increase in pressure to use this route. In conclusion he suggests that if permission is granted the frequency of the use is limited to 14 days/year, and objects to any greater use in the absence of evidence to show the impact on the AONB is not significant and that the development is contrary to Policy C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Arreton Parish Council add to original letter confirming no objection to the principle of the use but the Council's view is that the intensity which has recently occurred is unacceptable. It is suggested that the frequency of the use is strictly limited in terms of which days and hours, no subletting and no advertisements, no parking on the cemetery forecourt and no motocross activities during a burial at the cemetery.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Objections

The Country Land and Business Association oppose the development on the basis of excess noise, pollution and dust.

The Ramblers Association oppose the development on the basis of noise and pollution and the generation of dust and the resultant effect on the right of way. Also suggests that such activities would be a distraction to drivers passing the site on the A3056.

CPRE object on grounds of noise and adverse effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, development contrary to policy.

Wight Wild Life raise concern regarding cumulative effects on the AONB.

30 letters of objection from local residents, in the main on grounds of excessive noise, generation of dust, generation of traffic, generation of noise attributable purely to PA systems and a development which is alien to tourism.

One further letter from a previous correspondence urging compromise and limited the usage to an acceptable maximum with extra control on uses to prevent intensification. A copy of this letter has been sent to Members.

A letter from English Heritage following one objector's approach points out that any nuisance that reaches a point where the amenities of a house are seriously affected can be a threat to its long term viability and that the track may constitute such a nuisance.

Support

Two letters of support from the Auto Cycle Union confirming that the June 29 event is one of three major events celebrating 100 years of motor cycle competition in the country and that all of the activities staged will be properly organised and insured under their supervision. Also confirms that the circuit will be a valuable asset to the Island.

Letter of support from St Johns Ambulance who provide the first aid cover and that the circuit is laid out in a proper manner enabling easy access in the event of an emergency.

61 letters of support from, in the main, members of the club or interested third parties expressing that the club is an organisation which operates safely and in an organised manner. That the site is distant from most people, that it supports tourism and entertainment. Approval of a proper site will prevent erosion and damage to land elsewhere and that the activity supports the younger section of the community.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

This application seeks consent for the continuation of the use of this land as a motocross track. Hitherto and for a period of approximately 10 years, the site has been in use for motocross racing, permission being granted by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as "permitted development". This permission is granted by statutory instrument and covers all land throughout England and Wales with the only exceptions as being land which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest or if the land is within the curtilage of a building. This is a piece of open, former agricultural land and motocross racing is therefore permissible for 14 days per year.

Permission is now required as engineering operations by way of land moulding, to form mounds or jumps on parts of the circuit have been carried out and it is intended to continue to use the land for racing or practicing for a cumulative total of more than 14 days in any rolling year.

Determination of this proposal turns on matters of policy and principle; the effects of noise on the local environment including surrounding property; the visual impact of not only the activities whilst they are taking place but during those periods the land is not in use; the effects of increased traffic on event days and matters relating to environmental pollution mainly created by the generation of dust from activities.

Noise is probably the main determining factor and this appears to be the common and most prevalent of objections raised by third parties. Noise nuisance would be a matter dependent upon a number of factors and realised only by those persons who live in the vicinity. Noise levels will vary dependent upon the numbers of machines racing, the distance from the properties experiencing the noise and other environmental factors such as wind speed and direction. Determination of whether or not noise levels are a nuisance or an acceptable feature of the activity will depend upon frequency of the activities, the hours operated in addition to the factors mentioned before.

When the site was in use under permitted development, for 14 days per calendar year, there were no land moulding exercises and no manmade features and, in between those individual uses, the site began to recover from the erosion which occurred during race events. Earthmoving has taken place on the site already, in anticipation of the use of the site for the scheduled event on 29 June. In addition, more recently, the site has been used for more than 14 days and with the recent earthmoving activities have left a visual impact of the track and moved earth appearing brown against a green backdrop.

There are no permanent structures on the site although some equipment has been left close to the road but it does not have a significant visual impact. Only on event days when mobile toilet facilities and other temporary structures are moved onto the land will there be any significant visual impact but, of course, this will be short lived since it will be cleared from the site quickly following those events. These, temporary structures could be compared to those which appear at the County Show and the Music Festival at Seaclose. There maybe some signage displayed permanently at the gates for security etc purposes but it is unlikely that there will be any permanent or long term advertising at the site. However, if the track remains 'marked out' by posts and rope or fencing, the visual impact will be greater at all times.

Turning to matters regarding traffic, the event days will inevitably generate significant numbers of vehicles entering and leaving the site at specific times, arriving before the event is scheduled to start and leaving immediately after the conclusion of competitions. These periods during those days will need to be marshalled and as with other significant events elsewhere on the Island, such as the County Show and the Garlic Festival they are publicised sufficiently to enable those who are not interested in gaining access to the site to attend, to avoid the area. Such levels of traffic are anticipated only during the extraordinary incidents like a national event (such as that scheduled for the 29 June) but local events are not likely to generate such significant spectator interest such as to require marshalling other than within the site.

The Highway Engineers have considered the proposals and have drawn attention to several issues regarding access which, if revised by the applicants, will satisfy the engineer' requirements.

It is apparent that the numbers of participants in events does, on average, reach 28 during local events but extraordinary meetings, such as the national event scheduled will result in an increase to approximately 120 but it is the case that a maximum of 40 motorcycles can participate in any one race during each event. The number of machines will generate a certain amount of pollution but it is felt that this would be not much greater than that which would be generated from the main road adjoining but the majority of objections received cite dust as being the main pollutant.

Motocross racing in dry weather inevitably will throw up the surface of the track and normally the track is damped down to keep dust to a minimum. It should be noted that, with regard to this specific aspect, the original submission by the agents pointed out that mains water was available on site and therefore the circuit can be "damped down" to ensure dust clouds are substantially reduced.

Options

1. To refuse planning permission on grounds of unacceptable noise levels creating disturbance to nearby residential property and creation of a nuisance especially in the form of dust and the locality.

2. Grant temporary permission to give the use a trial with conditions restricting the intensity of the use by controlling the number of events, hours of operation in accordance with a strict timetable and preventing other associated uses and developments on the site even during event days.

3. Grant permanent planning permission subject to conditions similar to those in option 2 but with condition requiring planting to improve long term factors.

4. Grant an unrestricted permission.

In refusing planning permission Members will be aware that the Club could resume the use of the site for motocross racing (including practicing) for a maximum of 14 days per year with events and practicing possibly taking place elsewhere on the Island, again within the 14 day limit without the need for planning permission. Enforcement action would need to be taken to secure the removal of the engineering works which have taken place, namely the formation of "humps" and the restoration of the land to its former condition including the re seeding of the land back to grass. However, the re seeding of the circuit if enforced would be pointless if the land remained in use for the 14 day use which is allowed.

The grant of a temporary permission would give the Council the opportunity to impose conditions to control the use of the site and to monitor the impacts, not only on the adjoining residential property but the associated impacts of traffic and, indeed on a positive basis on tourism, especially following the scheduled national event which is due to take place on 29 June of this year.

The grant of a permanent consent, even if subject to the same conditions as a temporary consent would establish the site as a permanent venue with established conditions which could not be altered if they are found to be lacking or too inflexible unless a further application to vary or remove conditions was submitted. However, the grant of a temporary consent would not allow for permanent measures such as extensive landscaping which would clearly be effective only after a period of maturity. The grant of a temporary consent would enable the Development Control Committee to review any submission for renewal and if found to be unacceptable, would give the option of refusal.

The grant of an unrestricted permission would enable such an intensity of use of the site that such a situation would be untenable.

In essence the applicants seek consent to continue to use the site for motocross racing for a total of 20 days for events and weekend practice (generally on Sundays and two Saturdays) per annum. A time restriction would be between 9:30 am and 5:00 pm at a maximum as, during winter months, any events would be finished at dusk. In addition weekday practice is also requested for two days per week by a maximum of five riders between the hours of 12 noon and 4:00 pm. This would mean that the circuit could be in use up to a maximum of 124 days a year for both events and practicing.

Members may recall the planning permission granted for the change of use of part of the sandpit and a landfill site at Knighton Sandpit in the adjoining Parish of Newchurch. This was first granted planning permission in February 1996 for a temporary period which expired in June 1997. That permission was subsequently renewed and the permission on that site is due to expire at the end of this year.

That permission was granted subject to conditions limiting the use to a maximum of 24 days per calendar year with all events and practice sessions taking place on Saturdays and Sundays only in accordance with a schedule to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. In addition hours of racing or practice were precluded other than between the hours of 10:00 to 17:00 and other conditions required the boundary of the site to be secured to prevent unauthorised use and the exclusion of any part of the track from more sensitive areas. The permission for the use of the Knighton site is valid until the end of this year but as the site has been gradually filled with inert waste in accordance with another permission, that site has become less interesting for use of motocross and it is understood that this will cease by the end of this year when the permission expires and that there will be no application for renewal if this current application is successful.

Planning policies clearly seek to protect the landscape and to protect the amenities of residential and other properties and the C1 and C2 policies refer to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and countryside areas which are not so designated. Policies L2 and L9 relate to recreational uses and noisy sports especially in L9. The explanatory text draws attention to the ability to use land for a temporary period without the need to apply for planning permission and recognises that such uses do create neighbourly conflict. The text continues by stating that there is a need to find a suitable site for speedway, motocross and shooting, which would allow more stringent policies to be applied in other countryside areas. If a site is not identified it could lead potentially to more problems elsewhere if allowed to continue in an uncontrolled way.

Motocross is a noisy sport. It is inevitable that there will be some conflict between this activity and other uses and the advice in PPG17 suggests to Planning Authorities that it is important to identify sites which will minimise conflicts with other uses. PPG24 which relates to planning and noise also advises Planning Authorities to ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance and that a subsequent intensification or change of use could result in greater intrusion, that the Local Planning Authority should consider the use of appropriate conditions and that noise impact from such a sport will depend to a large extent on frequency of the use and the design of the facility. The nearest properties are approximately 500 metres from the track. These are located in a northwest to northeast quadrant around St Georges Church and off Burnt House Lane. One letter has been received from any properties to the south of the site, the nearest properties being Pyle Cottages, situated on the north side of the A3056, a few metres west of the New Barn Business Park.

Noisy sports are intrusive and motocross is a noisy sport which located in this position is likely to have a noise impact on nearby residential property. In reaching a decision on this application, it should be remembered that in the event that planning permission is withheld, the operators can resume use of the site for 14 days, but 14 days of otherwise uncontrolled operation. In granting planning permission for 20 days, conditions can be imposed to control which days, achieve limitations on hours of operation during those authorised days, control over access to the site in terms of the layout and imposition of a one-way system and controls over the security of the site to prevent unauthorised use by other parties.

The applicants have requested 20 days for events and practices but have also requested two weekday practice sessions for a maximum of five motorcycles between the hours of 12 noon and 4:00 pm. This would enable the site to be used for a total of 124 days per year which is, essentially, every third day. I consider this to be an unacceptable frequency and whilst I am disposed to accept the requested 20 days per year, which is only six days more than already permitted, or 24 (which is similar to that of the Knighton site), the monitoring and enforcement of midweek practice sessions, especially of unspecified days, would pose unprecedented problems. My recommendations concur closely with those of the Environmental Health Officer whose comments are detailed above.

In recognition of the expiry of the Club's present consent at Knighton the need to find an alternative site, the level of support and especially the level of objection to the use of this site I conclude that, at this time, only a temporary consent should be contemplated in order to allow the use to continue whilst being tested to enable a review of conditions or to refuse it in the event that the continued use reveals itself during that monitoring to be unacceptable environmentally. Bearing in mind I am only recommending that a temporary consent of one year is granted, it is not appropriate to recommend conditions regarding landscaping, but re seeding of those areas which have been seriously disturbed during the recent land moulding exercise is a reasonable condition which should be done within one month of the date of any consent granted.

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 application 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 on 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 the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the policies regarding the provision of formal sports, countryside preservation policies, traffic policies and the content of objections raised, set against a background of the permitted uses of the site, it is felt appropriate to grant a temporary planning permission to enable the participants to continue their sport but whilst safeguarding a balance in environmental terms for nearby residential occupants consistent with the policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 June 2004 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The use hereby permitted, namely the motocross events, shall be limited to a total of 24 days per annum, to include any event days and practice days. Of these motocross events no events shall occur on consecutive weekends, namely Saturday and Sunday.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

The use of the motocross event, measured from the time the first bike enters the track and the last bike leaves the track, shall not take place outside the hours of 09:30 to 17:00 hrs.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

This permission shall authorise the use of the site for motocross events and practice as detailed in other conditions of this permission. It shall not authorise the use of the site for quad bike racing or practicing or other motor sports, and no such activities shall take place at any time.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

Motocross events shall not be permitted on New Years Day, Remembrance Sunday and 11th November if not the same, Christmas Day or Boxing Day; the total weekend of Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Easter Sunday, and Easter Monday.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

A schedule of motocross events, including dates and durations shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, and the events shall not commence until this has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no alterations to this schedule unless written consent is agreed with the Planning Authority at least two weeks prior to the change.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

Prior to the commencement of any motocross activity on the site, the track surface shall be 'damped down' to prevent any dust emissions beyond the site boundary, thereafter for the duration of the event visual observations shall be made and where the generation of dust is noted all activity shall cease until further damping down of the track surface has been completed.

Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the dust emissions of motocross events.

The site boundaries shall be secured in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, including gates at the entrances which shall be kept locked at all times other than on days when racing or practicing in accordance with the schedule of events as required by condition 5 above.

Reason: To ensure the use is continued strictly in accordance with the schedule of events agreed under condition 6 above and to prevent annoyance and disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties from the noise emissions of motocross events.

No permanent advertisements shall be displayed on or near the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any temporary advertisements shall be restricted to scheduled race days and all advertisements shall be removed by the end of the race day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in the interests of road safety in accordance with policies C1 and TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10	The access and egress from the site shall be laid out and maintained in accordance with the approved revised plan. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight 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 heavy vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use:

Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles

1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm

2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material

3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, 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.

12	No public address system shall be installed or used at any time on or around the site the subject of this permission. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Other than the day preceding or following an event day agreed in accordance with the schedule of events submitted under condition 5 above, no mobile or fixed structures or track markers of any description shall be left on the site at any time unless the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14	There shall be no vehicular access off the Byway A28 to the north of the site at any time in connection with the use hereby approved. Reason: To ensure no conflicts occur with the normal usage of the byway.

15	The areas, apart from the track itself, which have been the subject of earth moulding shall be re-seeding or re-turfed within one month of this permission. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That the use of the site is monitored concurrent with the Environmental Health Department over the period of the planning permission.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/25516 Beauty therapist working from residential property at 14 Winston Road, Cowes

Officer: Mr P Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider the course of action to be adopted in respect of an alleged unauthorised commercial use at a residential property situated at 14 Winston Road, Cowes.

Background

In April 2003 a complaint was received that the new owner had moved into 14 Winston Road, Cowes and was setting up a business as a beauty therapist from that address.

The Enforcement Officer visited the address and spoke with the owner who said that she was a mobile beautician, but did see some clients at her home address.

Towards the latter part of April the complainant telephoned the Planning Department again and said that a number of clients had called at the address but from the information provided it did not appear that there had been that many. The complainant also said that a large van had called at the address delivering beauty products.

As a result of this further telephone call the Enforcement Officer served a Planning Contravention Notice on the owner of 14 Winston Road which was promptly returned with a covering letter. The owner said that her previous address was 65 Victoria Road, Cowes where she had run her business for six and a half years without complaint from any of her neighbours. She now has two children and states that since she started a family she has reduced her clientele and finds it easier to treat some clients from home. She admits that for the first two weeks after she moved into Winston Road she saw more clients than usual as due to the upheaval she had a backlog of clients to catch up with.

The owner said that now things had settled down she sees an average of two ladies a day on weekdays and works for no longer than two hours per day. The only part of the dwelling which is used for treating clients is the rear ground floor extension which also doubles as an extension to the living room with television and children’s toys therein. She stated that deliveries to the address will be rare, no more than once every two months.

This information was imparted verbally to the complainant who admitted that the number of persons visiting the property had dropped dramatically.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To accept that the current level of activities at 14 Winston Road do not amount to a material change of use and to take no further action at this time.

2. To indicate to the occupant of 14 Winston Road that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority a material change of use has occurred and to call for a planning application for change of use giving the owner 28 days in which to apply (without prejudice to the final decision).

3. To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of beauty treatment therapy at 14 Winston Road, period for compliance - two months.

Conclusion

PPG4 recognises that many small businesses and other non-residential uses are started by people working in their own homes. It states that home working does not necessarily require planning permission. Permission is not normally required where the use of part of a dwelling house for business purposes does not change the overall character of the property’s use as a single dwelling. For example, the use by a householder of a room as an office, or childminding complying with the Department of Health’s standard recommended ratios, would be unlikely to mean that the character of the house’s use as a single dwelling had ceased and would not normally require planning permission. Once the business or non-residential use of the property ceases to be ancillary to its use as a single dwelling because, for example, the business has grown and the use of the dwelling for activities relating to the business has intensified, a material change of use for which planning permission is required is likely to have taken place. The likelihood of there having been such a material change of use may be indicated where the business or non-residential use generates visitors, traffic, noise or fumes over and above what might be expected if the property were in use as a single dwelling without any ancillary use.

Based on the information obtained, I do not consider that the extent of the business use being carried out at this residential address has crossed the threshold that would suggest a material change of use. The number of callers per week is not excessive, and it is not a use which generates noise, pollution, or other unpleasant side effects. If this business were at a level where an application was called for I feel that it is one which could be recommended for approval. I believe however that an application should not be called for purely to regularise the situation in these circumstances

Human Rights

In coming to the recommendation not to pursue enforcement action considerations have been giving to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The impact of the unauthorised use on the immediate area has been carefully considered. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council as expressed through PPG18 and the Unitary Development Plan and is in the wider public interest.

Recommendation

To accept that the current level of activities at 14 Winston Road do not amount to a material change of use and to take no further action at this time.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services