11 MAY 2004
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
TCP/2700/F – P/02228/03 -
Demolition Of existing building; construction of 4/5 storey building to form 7 flats with retail unit on ground floor, 9 Pier Street, Sandown
Summary
To consider the implications and sustainability of a resolution by this Committee at the last meeting to refuse this application.
A copy of the report submitted to this Committee at the last meeting held on 20 April 2004 is appended to this latest report.
There is a three storey white rendered building comprising a disused pub or nightclub with flats over presently standing on the site (see appended plan(s) and photograph). The land rises steeply behind the building towards the rear of properties located off the High Street.
For details of the application Members should refer to the appended report.
The proposed development raised a number of policy related issues and other material planning considerations which can be summarised in the following terms.
Notwithstanding the content of the third party representations recorded in the report (see appendix) and statement of objections made at the meeting by owner/occupiers of neighbouring or nearby properties, Members gave significant weight to the interpretation and application of tourist related policies, primarily Policy T4 (Designation of Hotel Areas) in conjunction with longer term aspirations which may feature in the emerging regeneration plan for Sandown Bay.
Members chose not to accept the recommendation for conditional approval and decided to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment of the site would be contrary to the aforementioned policy.
Having advised Members prior to the vote that the proposed redevelopment of the site was not in conflict with this particular policy the Development Control Manager, in response to the resolution to refuse permission, invoked the cooling-off period to enable Officers to carry out further investigations and prepare a more detailed assessment of the Members’ interpretation of the policy implications and then report back to this Committee.
1. To reconsider the application and
granting conditional planning permission in accordance with the officers’
recommendation. 2. To reconsider the
application, adhere to the resolution and refuse permission on the grounds
that in the view of the Committee the proposed redevelopment is in conflict
with Policy T4 of the Unitary Development Plan. 3. To reconsider the
application and decide that Policy T4 of the Unitary Development Plan is
not relevant and does not offer a sustainable reason for refusing planning
permission, but in recognition of material considerations referred to in
this report defer the matter so that a site visit can be undertaken
followed by the determination of the application.
Options
As planning practitioners, professional officers employed in the Development Control Section have to rely on approved development plan policy as the primary consideration in the determination of all planning applications in accordance with the requirements of Section 54A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. In similar terms, professional officers and elected Members should give significant weight to national/local planning policies but should disregard, or only give very minimal weight, to collective or individual aspirations, “wish lists”, preferences, etc. as they are extremely unlikely to offer a sustainable reason for withholding planning permission.
In order to provide a comprehensive response to the concerns expressed by Members leading to the resolution to refuse permission it is my intention to examine in particularly close detail the section of the Unitary Development Plan that deals with tourist related policies, and to test these policies in terms of relevance, weighting and potential conflict against the proposed redevelopment of this site. This analysis is based on Members and Officers general acceptance that this is an important and prominent site within an area which is clearly predominantly tourism related which is part of one of the Island’s main seaside resorts.
In making a decision contrary to the Officer’s recommendation Members were relying on what was described as a rather “liberal interpretation” of Policy T4.
In the hotel areas
defined on the proposals map, proposals for hotel accommodation will be
acceptable in principle.
Applications involving the loss of hotel accommodation will only be
approved where they involve the upgrading or improvement of existing
hotels. Proposals involving the
loss of other forms of tourist accommodation, facilities, entertainments
and parking to uses unrelated to tourism will not be approved.
T4
The site is within the hotel policy area for Sandown, this factor is not in dispute, however:
· This application does not involve the loss of hotel accommodation and therefore is not in conflict with this policy.
· The application does not involve the loss of other forms of tourist accommodation and is therefore not in conflict with this policy.
· The application will result in the loss of a disused bar to be replaced with a retail unit at ground floor level, and is therefore not in conflict with this policy.
My conclusion is that Policy T4 does not in any form offer a sustainable reason for refusing this planning application.
The following tourist related policies have been examined and assessed in relation to the proposed development.
· T1 (the promotion of tourism and the extension of the season).
· T2 Tourism related development (other than accommodation).
· T3 (criteria for the development of holiday accommodation).
· T5 (hotels outside of defined hotel areas).
· T7 (sites suitable for tourism related development).
· T8 (ancillary development associated with tourism uses).
· T10 (the use of new tourist accommodation for permanent residential use).
All the above policies positively promote tourist and tourist related development while seeking to protect existing tourist and tourist related facilities. However, they have not been drafted and designed to negatively frustrate other forms of development on sites that are either not in tourist use or are only partially (or were partially) in tourist use. The majority of these policies are not relevant to the determination of the application, and where there is any “linkage” it is indirect and should be given only very minimal or no weight whatsoever in the determination of the application, and should on no account outweigh other planning policy issues which could be brought forward to support the redevelopment of the site.
On this basis Members are firmly recommended to rescind the present resolution, to reconsider the application and grant conditional planning permission.
To do otherwise would mean that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, would be likely to be faced with an appeal against an unsustainable decision which may involve an award of costs if the applicant chose to take the route of a Hearing or a local enquiry as opposed to the written representation procedure. Moreover, a decision to refuse an application for the redevelopment of a site where only part of the existing building was formerly in a tourist related use simply because the proposal is not for tourist accommodation or tourist related development would set a serious precedent for dealing with applications of a similar nature in the future which could lead to a trend that considerably reduces investment in the area, which will have a detrimental effect on the urban fabric and impact on the attractiveness of the town as a seaside resort.
It is considered that this was a misconceived decision and there are other issues which are material planning considerations which deserve to be carefully analysed before the application is determined. While there is no wish to deflect Members from the recommendation for conditional approval it may be prudent for the Committee to visit the site before determining the application.
3. To
reconsider the application and decide that Policy T4 of the Unitary
Development Plan is not relevant and does not offer a sustainable reason
for refusing planning permission, but in recognition of material
considerations referred to in this report defer the matter so that a site
visit can be undertaken followed by the determination of the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Tel: (01983) 853565
e-mail: [email protected]
Head of Planning Services