PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1. NEW APPEALS LODGED

TCP/1458/H Mr R Dean against refusal for mobile home for employee of golf club, land at Ryde Golf Club, Binstead Road, Ryde.

TCP/25193 Mrs L Poole against refusal for car port at 197 Fairlee Road, Newport.

TCP/25319 Miss S Sweetlove against refusal for vehicular access and hardstanding at 53 Shide Road, Newport.

TCP/25115 Mr and Mrs R Hodgson against refusal of outline for detached house and vehicular access, land adjacent 32 Mayfield Drive, Newport.

2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN

TCP/5964/K Mr O Wiley against Enforcement Notice relating to change of use from hotel to staff accommodation at Raffles Inn, Steyne Road, Bembridge.

3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

No new dates to report

4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

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

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 8 October 2002.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 6 May 2003.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality and on the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwelling at 33 Sylvan Avenue by reason of being overbearing.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The site is triangular and the proposed bungalow would have significantly limited garden space to the front and the rear.

• The proposal would appear contrived and incongruous to the unacceptable detriment of the appearance of the locality and would conflict with UDP policies.

• The proposed bungalow would span most of the width of the rear garden of no. 33 Sylvan Avenue at the rear and would result in an unduly oppressive sense of enclosure resulting in an unacceptable overbearing effect on the living conditions of the occupiers.

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

(b) TCP/25157 Mr A H Ridett and Mrs P G Cameron against refusal for three detached houses with integral double garage and vehicular accesses on land at rear of Binfield House, Mill Lane, Binfield, Newport.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 21 November 2002.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 8 May 2003.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area in terms of its size and physical impact.

• The effect on highway safety due to the condition of the road serving the site.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The site is not infill and would result in an unacceptable consolidation of development between a former farm complex and the marina.

• The proposal would have a significant impact on the rural character of the area by the introduction of three large houses.

• The benefits of an energy saving demonstration project is acknowledged but is not sufficient justification to allow the development as an exception to policy.

• The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the open countryside and contrary to UDP policies.

• Mill Lane is not constructed to the normal standard which would be expected of a road serving the range of development it does but does have a solid surface and already carries a considerable amount of traffic.

• The development would not have a harmful impact on highway safety of the present of future road users.

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

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 21 August 2002

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 8 May 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

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

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The proposed extension would change the orientation of the house from facing its garage to facing Swains Lane. This change would result in a better quality design of building in this location.

• The height and mass of the proposed development would be compatible with examples of other buildings nearby.

• The scale and form of the extension would be sympathetic to the host dwelling.

• The visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area would be respected.

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

(d) TCP/19153/H Mr N W Pethick against refusal for a two storey extension providing additional living accommodation to flats 1 and 4 at Norman Court, Quarry View, Camphill, Newport.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 20 November 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 12 May 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties due to siting and height.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The proposal will project into the courtyard between two blocks of flats and will have windows facing towards the rooms in the rear of the block fronting Quarry View.

• The rear rooms of the flats across the courtyard are already restricted in outlook due to the small size of the courtyard.

• The siting and height of the proposal would be obtrusive and have an overbearing effect on the occupiers of the flats across the courtyard and further restrict their outlook.

• There would also be overlooking at close range between the new bedroom in the east elevation and the flats opposite.

• The scale and height of the proposed extension and its relationship to the adjacent buildings would have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring flats.

• The proposal would be contrary to UDP policies.

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

(e) TCP/16351/B Mr D Hughes against refusal for formation of vehicular access and hardstanding at 13 Arthurs Hill, Shanklin.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 12 July 2002

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 12 May 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on highway safety in terms of providing for adequate access onto the highway.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Part of the front garden is already given over to hardstanding.

• The principle of the development is acceptable.

• Arthurs Hill is a busy road with parking and speed restrictions and proper provision should be made for vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in order to ensure safety of road users.

• It would be possible to construct an acceptable parking and turning area with suitable gradient and drainage.

• The total area within the site would be kept available for the parking and turning of one car.

• There is adequate space to provide safe access to the highway.

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

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

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 30 May 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 19 May 2003

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

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

• Whether the proposed dwelling could be located on site in a way that would protect the living conditions of neighbours with special regard to outlook and privacy.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Existing development in the area follows a regular pattern of generally uniform plot sizes and shapes which creates a reasonable spacious appearance.

• The appeal site is relatively narrow and irregular in shape and has a long road frontage as a result of its corner position.

• Because of the constraints of the site, a dwelling would be likely to be sited either close to the frontage or in close proximity to the side boundary of the rear garden at no. 30. In either case the development would appear uncharacteristically cramped and out of keeping with the general pattern of development in the area.

• The proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and be contrary to the UDP.

• It is unlikely the proposed development could be satisfactorily sited in a way that would protect the living conditions of the occupants of no. 30, with particular reference to their outlook.

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

(g) TCP/25074 Mrs C Thomas against refusal of demolition of single storey extension and new two storey extension at 21 Harding Road, Ryde.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 7 October 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 20 May 2003

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjoining properties with reference to loss of daylight and outlook.

• The effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and neighbouring houses.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Due to the size and location of the proposed extension there would be loss of daylight through the side windows and rear first floor window of the neighbouring dwelling to the northwest.

• The proposal would dominate and at times overshadow the rear of this neighbouring property and its garden.

• The proposed extension would abut the side boundary of the attached house and the flank wall would be highly visible and dominating.

• The proposed extension is attractively designed but this is outweighed by its scale being out of keeping with the modestly sized and tightly knit housing in the vicinity.

• The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality and conflict with UDP policies.

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

(h) TCP/24537 Mr and Mrs K Mew against refusal for demolition of farm buildings and the construction of a chalet bungalow with integral double garage and vehicular access on land between Southgrounds and Southside Cottage, Appleford Road, Chale Green.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal - 14 May 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 20 May 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Replacing the group of former farm buildings with a house would alter the appearance and character of the site.

• The existing group of two dwellings separated by farm buildings would become a row of three dwellings which would appear suburban.

• There would be an adverse impact on the rural characteristics of the area and the development would consolidate this small pocket of development in the countryside.

• The appeal proposal does not fall within any of the exception categories of development outside defined settlements.

• The proposed development would fail to conserve the natural beauty of the AONB.

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

(i) TCP/24680 Southern Households Limited against refusal to vary condition to reduce the number of affordable housing units from four to three at Plots 1 - 4, High Street, Freshwater.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal

Committee Decision: Refusal -25 June 2002

Appeal Decision: Dismissed -19 May 2003

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The effect of the proposal on the aims of UDP policies with regard to provision of affordable housing.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Outline consent was granted in May 1999 for residential development with a condition requiring 20% of the units to be affordable housing. The indicative layout showed fourteen units.

• Full consent was granted in May 2000 for four houses on the High Street frontage with the applicant offering these as affordable housing.

• Reserved matters application for ten units for the remainder of the site was approved in March 2001.

• The appeal sought to provide only three units of affordable housing calculated as being the 20% referred to in Policy H14.

• The Council maintains the four units stemmed from its view at outline stage that the site was suitable for the development of twenty units.

• There is an identified need in the West Wight for affordable housing.

• The site is a suitable town centre location.

• The arrangement for four houses has been agreed between the parties and the offer and the process was in line with that envisaged in Circular 6/98 and PPG3.

• Whilst the UDP policy specifies 20%, the explanatory text makes it clear that not less than 20% is to be provided.

• The 28.5% which now results falls within the policy framework.

• The condition requiring four units of affordable housing meets with the six tests of Circular 11/95.

• The removal of the condition and its replacement with one which requires only three units would adversely affect the aims of the UDP with regard to the provision of affordable housing.

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

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