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.
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.
11 MAY 2004
|
1 |
TCP/01870/H P/00082/04 land
abutting Elm Grove and Nine Acres Lane with access off, St. Johns Road, Newport,
PO30 |
Newport |
Conditional
Approval |
|
2 |
TCP/05514/W P/00252/04 site
of former garages and parking area adjacent 160, Arctic Road, Cowes,
PO31 |
Cowes |
Conditional
Approval |
|
3 |
TCP/08671/D P/00176/04 land
between 11-15, Newport Road, Cowes,
PO31 |
Cowes |
Conditional
Approval |
|
4 |
TCP/09028/N P/00020/04 land
adjacent The Old Barn, Rew Street, Cowes,
PO31 |
Gurnard |
Refusal |
|
5 |
TCP/09309/G P/02224/03 24
Howgate Road, Bembridge,
Isle Of Wight, PO355QW |
Bembridge |
Conditional
Approval |
|
6 |
TCP/13519/F P/02094/03 rear
of 41/42 High Street and adjacent 5, Star Street, Ryde,
PO33 |
Ryde |
Conditional
Approval |
|
7 |
TCP/19216/D P/02248/03 land
at Knighton Sandpit and landfill site, Knighton Shute, Newchurch,
Sandown, PO36 |
Newchurch |
Refusal |
|
8 |
TCP/21581/D P/00441/04 Pt
OS Parcel 8700, land at North Fairlee Farm, Fairlee Road, Newport,
PO30 |
Newport |
Refusal |
|
9 |
TCP/21804/D P/02253/03 Ryde
Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club, Playstreet Lane, Ryde,
Isle Of Wight, PO333LJ |
Ryde |
Conditional
Approval |
|
10 |
TCP/25625/A P/00104/04 36
Coronation Avenue, Cowes,
Isle Of Wight, PO318PN |
Northwood |
Conditional
Approval |
|
11 |
TCP/25897/A P/00213/04 1
Jameson Gardens, Totland
Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390AA |
Totland |
Conditional
Approval |
|
12 |
TCP/25943/A P/00573/04 land
at, The Promenade, Totland
Bay, PO39 |
Totland |
Conditional
Approval |
LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE 11 MAY 2004
(a) TCP/7917/E
|
9-13 Pier
Street, Ventnor |
Ventnor |
(b) TCP/9272/H
|
Victoria
Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor |
Ventnor |
(c) TCP/13798/B
|
52-58 High
Street, Ventnor |
Ventnor |
(d) TCP/15171/G
|
Cheeks Farm,
Merstone Lane, Merstone |
Merstone |
(e) E/15645/B
|
Vectra
Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens |
St Helens |
(f) TCP/25066
|
Hulverstone
Farm, Hulverstone Lane, Hulverstone, Newport |
Newport |
|
1. |
TCP/01870/H P/00082/04 Parish/Name: Newport
Ward: Newport South Registration Date: 28/01/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Western Challenge Housing Association Terraced development of a block of
4 flats and 3 houses; terrace of 3 houses; parking and access road land abutting Elm Grove and Nine
Acres Lane with access off, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The Local member,
Councilor Michael Cunningham has requested the application go to the
Development Control Committee, as the proposal is a major application-giving
rise to a number of objections from the local community.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a major
application, the processing of which has taken 17 weeks to date. A decision at this meeting would mean that
the submission would not have been determined within the prescribed
thirteen-week period for determination of applications due in part for the
request to go to Committee.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The site is located
within the Development Boundary of Newport, South of the Town Centre. It is a 0.20 ha site, which is currently
covered by excavated earth. The earth
on the Southern boundary of the site is currently higher than the slab level of
units 15-18 of phase 1 of the Housing Association development and slopes down
with the natural gradient of the land towards the North.
The Southern and Western
boundary is a mixture of sparse semi-mature elm trees and light hedge growth
that does not screen the site completely but forms a distinctive barrier
between the site and dwellings located along Elm Grove. The Northern boundary, currently an earth
bank forms a barrier between the site and a gravel car park used by
construction traffic. The Eastern
boundary is open and forms the access link to dwellings being constructed under
phase 1 of the development site.
The dominant use within
the area is residential dwellings, mainly located along Elm Grove to the South
and the Housing Association development to the East. There is a local park to the West, separated by Nine Acres Lane
via two hedges running in-situ with it.
There is a scouts hut and warehouse located 200 m away on land, past the
car park to the North of the Site,
The site is located 4 m
below Elm Grove that runs along the rear of the site in an East/West
direction. The majority of the houses
that run along Elm Grove are Listed buildings.
The natural topography of the land therefore indicates that these houses
will be at a higher gradient. Twelve
units have been approved along this East/West axis for the Housing Association,
eight of which have been subsequently built.
The Housing Association
development has a total of 31 units, over a 0.52 ha site, giving a density of
61 units per hectare. The total area of
the site inclusive of phase 2 is 0.72 ha.
Access to the site is via an existing access off St. Johns Road.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/1870/F P/1501/02
Application for demolition of buildings, construction of 23 houses and 8 flats,
parking and alterations to access road, submitted in October 2002 and withdrawn
in December of that year in favour of TCP/01870/G P/02258/02
TCP/01870/G P/02258/02
Application for demolition of building; construction of 8 flats, 23 houses
with parking; alterations to vehicular/pedestrians access, granted planning
permission 25 June 2003
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The access to the
development would be served via St.
Johns Road through phase 1 of the Housing Association development under
TCP/01870/G. The development has a
density of 50 units per hectare and is a continuation of the Housing
Association development mentioned above.
The site is split into two parts.
Firstly there are 7 units running along a North/South section while 3
other units simply extend the prevailing pattern of development on an East/West
axis.
The proposal for 4 flats
and 3 houses (units 35-41) runs along a North/South elevation. The two-storey development with pitched roof
steps down with the natural topography of the land from Elm Grove down towards
the North of the site. The drop from
units 35-38 (the flats) to unit 41 is 3 metres, with 2 steps down along the
ridge line, following the natural gradient of the land. The upper most ridge line is level with the
eaves of dwellings located along Elm Grove, therefore leaving the roofs along
Elm Grove exposed at a higher elevation. There are four windows facing Elm
Grove, two at the ground floor level will be screened via the retaining wall
running along the boundary. The two
first floor windows will overlook Elm Grove.
The units are 3.5 metres
from the Southern boundary, but 14 metres from dwellings along Elm Grove. The width of the units is 10.3 metres Units 40-41 step back off the main building
line at 2.0 meters and 2.5 meters respectively giving a staggered development. The rear gardens of each of the dwellings
ranges from 5 metres to 7 metres, providing both amenity land for the
development, but also a visual gap between the units and the boundary.
Units 32-34, running
along the West/East boundary is also a two-storey development with a pitched
roof following the same design criteria as phase 1 of the site. These units follow the same building line as
phase 1 of the site but being stepped forward by 2 metres from the previous
development. The units are 8.5 metres
(the length of the rear gardens) from the Southern Boundary and 17.5 metres
away from dwellings along Elm Grove.
Again the retaining wall screens the ground floor elevation while only
six windows at first floor level face Elm Grove. The ridge height of the units matches those of the previous
development giving a uniform pattern throughout the site. Units 35-38 are 1.2 metres higher than units
32-34. There is a gap of 15 metres between units 32-34 and 35-38 giving an
outlook and vista through the development site towards the North.
There are 10 designated
parking spaces on the site, which replicates that of phase 1 of the development
but also in accordance with Parking Guidelines for Zone 2 of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan providing 0-50% per unit or 1 space maximum per unit
of accommodation. The turning space as
been designed so that fire and refuse vehicles can turn in accordance with
Design Bulletin 32, Residential Roads and Footpaths (1992)
The site is proposed to
be landscaped with both soft and hard landscaping reflecting and carrying on
the transition from phase 1 of the development, while the materials used within
the construction of the units vary from a dark to light red brick giving a
variation in character to each of the units.
The tiles for the roof also match the style and colour those of phase 1
of the site.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
National
National policy regarding
residential development is contained within PPG3 (Housing). The basis of PPG3 was used to create the
Supplementary Planning Guidance Urban Capacity Study (2002); points of both
are listed below;
The site is located
within the development boundary on the Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered
to be as follows:
Strategic
S1 New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Urban
Areas
S2 Development encouraged on land that has been previously
developed
S6 All development expected to be of a high standard of design
S7 The need to provide 8,000 housing units over the plan period,
of which
a large proportion being
located within existing urban centers
Local
G1 Development envelopes for towns and villages
G4 General Locational Criteria for Development
E3 Change of use of employment land
D1 Standards of
Design
D2 Standards of design within the site
D3 Landscaping
H1 New Development within Main Island Towns
H4 Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined
settlements
H14 Locally affordable housing
TR7 Highway Considerations for New
Development
TR16 Parking policies and
guidelines
L10 Open space in housing development
Supplementary Planning
Guidance
The housing needs survey,
carried out by consultants and adopted by the Council in January 2002 concludes
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highways engineer
recommends approval subject to conditions
Environmental Health
Contaminated Land Officer requires a contaminated land survey completed prior
to the commencement of the development.
Architectural Crime and
Liaison Officer raises no objection, awarding a Secured By Design
certificate.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
There are fifteen letters
of objection and comment that can be summarized as follows;
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
There are no adverse
crime and disorder issues anticipated by the Crime Prevention Officer, David
Gledhill.
EVALUATION
Policy Guidance
The Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan policy E3 states Applications for the change of use of
land or premises to those outside employment use will not be permitted. The only exceptions to this policy will be
where (under part B) where alternative equivalent floor space suitable for
employment purposes can be found in the area without releasing land outside the
development envelope boundary for development; or (part C) the loss of the site
would not prejudice the ability of the area to meet local employment needs.
Prior owner of the site,
Newey & Eyre Ltd has subsequently relocated to Dodnor industrial estate
leaving the 0.72 ha site available for suitable alternatives. As previously stated 0.52 ha of the site has
been approved by the Development Control Committee on the 25 June 2003 for 31
units, 100% of which being affordable housing.
This therefore left 0.20 ha of the site remaining. The allocation of this site is now not best
placed for any employment use, as it would not suit the prevailing pattern of
development, dominant land uses. This application brings forward the need for
affordable housing identified under the Urban Capacity Study, Strategic and
Local plan policy.
It was noted on the
Committee Report under TCP/01870/G (4 February 2003), under the section titled
Comprehensive Development that there is undeveloped land to the West,
which is not subject to any current planning application, but whose potential
for development is recognised in the layout now proposed for this particular
site. Under that application, land
was purposely left for highway access and marked on the plan as Area to be
retained by Medina Housing for access to future development. Even though this does not set a
precedent for development is would be reasonable to state that the use of this
parcel of land would best suit a residential purpose, giving a comprehensive
development site offering 41 affordable units of accommodation. This is also in accordance with the Housing
Needs Survey (2002) that states that there is an increased need for affordable
housing units on the Island, needing to be allocated within main Island towns.
The Urban Capacity Study
(2002) designated as Supplementary Planning Guidance in unison with Planning
Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) identified that bringing windfall sites
forward for development should be encouraged.
The Island currently has around 500 housing units built per annum, 200
of which are found on windfall sites.
This small parcel of land is suitable for the extenuation of phase 1,
adding the capacity of housing being found on vital existing urban land.
Third Party Comments and
Objections
There have been a number
of 3 party comments and objections towards the proposal. A number of representations indicated that
the density of the development is out of character to the surrounding area. Under the Unitary Development Plan and in
accordance with PPG3 housing, development sites should look to densities above
30 units per hectare. Phase 1
development, approved by the Development Control Committee has a density of 61
units per hectare therefore giving a good relative density requirement for the
area within this site.
The Highway Authority
does not anticipate any adverse impact to highway safety, subject to conditions
set upon approval. The existing access
off St. Johns Road has been constructed
in accordance with approved details submitted under TCP/1870/G. The increase of 10 units on the site is not
anticipated to adversely affect highway safety. The capacity for parking on the site is in accordance with
Parking Guidelines for Zone 2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan,
with the allocation of 1 space per dwelling.
A number of residents state the area should be used for car parking but
this would be an inefficient use of land, not being in accordance with PPG3
(Housing), the Urban Capacity Study and the Isle of Wight Strategic or Local
Policies. The material considerations
for housing, is considered to outweigh the need for unallocated parking within
the area.
A number of objections
from residents state the ground levels are too high, the pitches of roofs are
too steep detracting from the visual amenities of the area and the quality of
Listed buildings along Elm Grove. As
you will read from the design statement below the position of the dwellings is
considered to be in an ideal location.
Consultation within the Conservation and Design department of Planning
Services states that the character and amenity of the Listed buildings along
Elm Grove will not be adversely affected.
In terms of privacy for the existing residents along Elm Grove the units
are at an adequate distance away, divided by Elm Grove and located at a lower
gradient not to cause any loss of privacy in accordance with Human Rights
Right to Privacy.
Representations also
state that there is a rare spider and nesting birds on the site. In consultation with the Ecology Officer
indicates there is likely to be a Wasp Spider, which is uncommon and appears in
rough grassland. The species is increasing
and not protected by law. Trees with
nesting birds on the site should be retained and should not be felled between
April through to July. This therefore
is conditioned.
Design
The design and layout of
the units represents the best possible format on the site for a number of
reasons. Firstly the access arrangement
comes off from the existing road through the site. Therefore the road has to be
straight off the existing, as it would not be practical to veer the road in a
different direction. Therefore it is
necessary to place units along the same building line as phase 1 developments
in order to achieve appropriate densities for the site in accordance with the
Unitary Development Plan policies.
The site also has to
provide adequate turning facility for fire and refuse appliance in accordance
with Design Bulletin 32 (Residential Roads and Footpaths, 1992). The siting of this turning area allows a
number of important design characteristics to be recognized. By placing the turning space in accordance with
the submitted plans gives a 15 metres gap between units 32-34 and 35-39. This therefore breaks the pattern of
development giving a distinctive character and level of outlook through the
site from Elm Grove. A number of
objectors have stated that the development will cause a loss of views. Even though a right to a view is not a
planning consideration the units do offer an outlook towards Newport Town
centre. If the site were not designed
in the way proposed on the relevant plans the density requirement, turning
facility and vehicle access would not be achieved, therefore being in
contradiction to the Unitary Development Plan Policies.
Units 35-39 are located
1.2 metres higher than that of the existing pattern of development. This though is following the natural
topography of the land, giving a varying pattern of design that gives the
development a feeling of intricacy, character and visual interest. There will be no loss of amenity to
residents along Elm Grove as the visual impact will be minimal, for the only
elevation that can be seen is at first floor level, as the ground floor
elevation is screened via the natural bank and retaining wall.
The site is landscaped
well, relating well to the neighboring site allowing a cohesive approach
throughout the area. The plans proposed
indicate additional planting, particularly on the Southern and Western
Boundary, where the existing hedge and elm trees are in poor condition,
strengthening the boundary between the two residential areas. A tree report (15 October 2002) by Paul
Sivell, for TCP/01870/G identified that a great quantity of elm trees on the
site have Dutch Elm Disease, therefore need replacing, as they will die in due
course. The mixture of hawthorn, blackthorn and various trees in appropriate
locations are subject to conditions, should approval be granted.
In conclusion the site
offers a valuable requirement for 100% affordable housing that simply extends
the current development of phase 1 for the Housing Association. The development
is subject to a Section 106 Agreement, allocating a transport infrastructure,
schools provision and an open space payment (totaling £19,400) for the local
vicinity. The design, layout, scale and mass relate well to the existing
environment not detracting from any amenity for proposed or existing residents. The application fulfills policy on a
National level but also on a strategic and localized level in accordance with
policy within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
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 in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the right of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Councils 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 will not have a detrimental impact on
the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities
and character of the locality. I
consider this proposal makes proper use of a non-conforming urban Brownfield
site providing 100% mix of affordable housing in line with the Isle of Wight
Housing Needs Survey. The development
is simply an extension of phase 1 of the site, continuing and relating well to
the design, landscaping and overall setting, giving a cohesive development
which makes efficient use of land and providing vital affordable housing in
accordance with National Policy. Any
potential environmental impacts on adjoining properties are not at a level that
would warrant refusal and no negative impacts are anticipated on the setting of
dwellings along Elm Grove. Overall the
proposal is considered to comply with the strategic and detailed aims of the
Unitary Development Plan and is recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL
(Subject to a Section 106
or Section 111 agreement for a transport infrastructure payment of £7500, a
Schools provision payment of £9000 and an open space payment at £2900, giving a total payment of £19,400)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Detail external roofing/facing
finishing - S02 |
|
3 |
Details of hard and soft
landscaping - M10 |
|
4 |
The development hereby
permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works
approved pursuant to condition 3 above have been completed in accordance with
the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other
recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a
timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after
planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,
seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end of the next
planting season with others of species, size and number as originally
approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the
provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of
landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy
D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials
and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby
permitted is commenced. 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. |
|
6 |
Timing of occupation -
J10 |
|
7 |
Details of roads, etc, design and
constr - J01 |
|
8 |
None of the dwellings
hereby approved shall be occupied until the car parking spaces which serve
the dwellings have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed in
advance in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate
parking provision in the interests of highway safety and sustainability in
accordance with Policy TR16 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity
studies, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such
agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection
points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for
attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or
overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed
systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure adequate
system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with
Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
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 desktop 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, (b) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desktop 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 included in an implementation timetable monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy decontamination and an appropriate qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. Reason: In the interests of
the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and in accordance with
policy P2 (Minimise contamination from development) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
The construction of
buildings pursuant to this consent shall not commence until a report, to
confirm that all remediation measures required under condition 10 above have
been carried out fully in accordance with the approved scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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. Reasons: In the interests of
the health and amenity of future users/occupiers and in accordance with
Policy P2 (Minimise contamination from development) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
All materials excavated
as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installing of
services or digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area
identified in red on the hereby approved plan B03909/01, attached to this
planning permission. The material
shall be removed from the site in accordance with a programme agreed with the
L.P.A, prior to the excavation taking place 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 Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
The dwelling 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 10 bicycles.
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. |
|
14 |
Provision of litter bins -
C15 |
|
15 |
In the event of the
ownership of the whole of the site or part thereof, being other than a
registered social landlord, and it being developed in the form of housing for
sale or rent on the open market, no unit shall be occupied until 25%
provision of local need for affordable housing for rent at 50% market value
has been built and transferred to a registered to a social landlord in
accordance with the criteria set out in policy H14 of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. Reason: To ensure the councils
long-term objectives contained within policy H14 identified to provide
affordable housing to meet local needs are not compromised and to comply with
PPG3 Housing. |
2. |
TCP/05514/W P/00252/04 Parish/Name: Cowes
Ward: Cowes Medina Registration Date: 18/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Wilstone Properties Ltd Demolition of store &
workshops; residential development of
3 storey block of 6 flats, 3 storey block of 3 flats & 2 storey block of
2 flats; vehicular access &
parking (amendments to approved scheme) site of former garages and parking
area adjacent 160, Arctic Road, Cowes, PO31 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application relates to further
development proposals on a site which has already been subject of an approval
for intensive development and raises a number of contentious issues
particularly in respect of affordable housing which warrant Committee consideration.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a major application, the
processing of which will have taken 12 weeks to date.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A site located on western side of
Arctic Road approximately 80 metres south of the junction of Arctic Road with
Bridge Road, a Cowes Social Club and the former Texas Service Station on the
west rear boundary with both these premises fronting Newport Road to the
west. The site has an overall frontage
on to Arctic Road of 70 metres and has recently been the subject of some site
clearance having formerly accommodated the garage blocks and workshop
buildings. The site rises from Arctic
Road towards the west.
Abutting the south western corner is
an established building which stands behind the garage premises being No. 30
Newport Road. Abutting that building
and within the application site is a 3 storey building forming workshops and
store being in a poor state of repair.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In April 1995 outline consent was
granted for nine houses and the conversion of the existing workshop and store
within the south western corner as previously described to form two maisonettes
on part of the current application site.
In April 1998 renewal consent
granted for the outline consent for nine houses and two maisonettes as quoted
above.
Most recent relevant approval was
granted in February 2002 and related to 21 houses in 2 terrace blocks of four,
3 terrace blocks of three and 2 pairs of semi-detached with 21 parking
spaces. Access was indicated to be off
Arctic Road. Approval was subject of a
number of conditions, most important of which required the provision of two
affordable housing units for rent prior to 50% of the open market housing being
completed.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This is a detailed application
seeking consent to revise the approval granted in February 2002 for 21
units. The revision involves an
increase in density by a total of seven units effectively replacing the terrace
of four abutting the southern boundary and the pair of semi-detached affordable
housing units in the south eastern corner of the site fronting Arctic Road
being a total of six units. The six
units to be replaced by a three storey block of six one-bedroom flats replacing
the virtually derelict building attached to No. 30 Newport Road as previously
described, a terrace consisting of two houses and a pair of maisonettes all to
be located abutting the southern boundary. The pair of semi-detached affordable
housing units as previously described to be replaced by a three storey block of
three two-bedroom flats.
In terms of parking this proposal
provides a total of 18 parking spaces which will effectively relate to the
houses and maisonettes with six one-bedroom flats having zero parking
provision. The three affordable housing
units also will not be provided with any parking facility within the site,
however the Housing Association who manage the adjoining existing development
to the south have stated that they will be incorporating three car parking
spaces within their land ownership to service the three two-bedroom flats.
Dwelling needs to be constructed in
facing brick under concrete tiled roofs and include decorative features such as
quoins, decorative string coursing and bracketed porch entrances.
Included in the application is
previously approved access and parking arrangements.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
National Policies are covered as
follows:-
PPG3 - Housing March 2000 covers the
following:-
·
Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and
size type and location of housing.
·
Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to
take pressures off development of green field sites.
·
Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility
by public transport to jobs, education and health facilities.
·
Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with
30-50 units per hectare being 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 centre sites.
·
Emphasis on the need for good quality designs.
·
Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in
isolation but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.
·
More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the
Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.
PPG13 - Transport March 2001
emphasises the following:-
·
Promotion of more sustainable transport choices for people.
·
Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure services by public
transport, walking and cycling.
·
Reduce the need to travel especially by car.
Finally reference is made to DETR
document - Places, Streets and Movement, the Companion Guide to Design Bulletin
32 makes the following statement regarding urban design:-
Good urban design
imaginatively used helps to make places more attractive in which to live and in
the context of the need for more housing may help them to accommodate more
homes than was previously the case. To
accommodate more development within urban areas but more particularly to create
more sustainable patterns of
development Local
Planning Authorities will need to explore the feasibility of an increase in the
density of development around town and local centres and other areas well
served by public transport. There may also be a need to achieve higher density
development on green field sites that can be done in a high quality way.
Local Plan Policies are as follows:-
Strategic Policies S1,
S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.
Other relevant Policies are as follows:-
G1 - Development
Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 - General Locational
Criteria for Development.
D1 - Standards of Design.
D2 - Standards for
Development Within the Site.
A3 - Allocation for
Residential Development Site.
TR16 - Parking Policies
and Guidelines.
TR7 - Highway
Considerations for New Development.
TR6 - Cycling and
Walking.
U11 - Infrastructure and
Services Provision.
Reference is also made to Housing
Needs Survey, the conclusion of which acknowledged the need for single person
accommodation though there continues to be an on-going demand for two and three
bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.
The site forms part of an overall
residential allocation which included not only the application site but also
the adjoining adjacent former Body Tech site which has now been fully
developed.
The site is located within Zone 2 of
the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum parking provision of
0-50% of parking guidelines, those guidelines requiring parking space per
bedroom.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends
conditional application be approved.
Council's Land Contamination Officer
recommends appropriate conditions should the application be approved.
TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cowes Town Council objects to the
application on grounds of over-development of the site and lack of amenity
space.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
None.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given
opportunity to comment but no observations have been received but it is not
anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications in respect
of this application.
EVALUATION
Material considerations in respect
of this proposal are as follows:-
Implications of increase
in density in the light of previous approvals and in relation to housing
policies both national and local.
Impact of the increased
development on surrounding area.
Provision and type of
affordable housing being provided again in relation to previous consent.
With regard to the first issue, this
proposal represents a further increase in density from that which received
consent in February 2002 with that density being 84 units per hectare. The increase by 7 units increases that
density to 93 units per hectare which Members may consider to be exceptionally
high. However this is the inevitable
result of the introduction of flatted development into the overall scheme. Incidentally even at this density it is less
than the formerly approved entire flatted development which had a density of
104 units per hectare.
The introduction of the 6
one-bedroom flats in the 3 storey block abutting the rear of No. 30 Newport Road
results in a similar proposal to that which was approved in April 1995 which
sought consent to convert existing workshop and store to form 2
maisonettes. In this case the proposal
is to replace the existing workshop and store which, because of its poor state
of repair, is almost certainly beyond conversion with a new development
providing 6 one-bedroom flats.
Provision of this type of development for either open market rented or
sales does address a need and is very much aimed at the low income groups desire
to get on the property ownership ladder.
Similarly with the introduction of a
pair of two-storey maisonettes as part of the proposed terrace which again
provides ideal accommodation in compliance with the Housing Needs Survey.
The important factor that needs to
be taken into account in this case is the location of this site relative to
Cowes town centre and access to public transport in the form of bus routes
between Cowes and Newport. The site is
also within reasonably short walking distance of the Cowes Red Funnel terminal
all of which makes it an ideal site for this type of development. This proposal does result in an
under-provision of parking. It is
anticipated that the houses and 2 two-bed maisonettes on the development site
will be allocated those parking spaces which are provided but the one-bedroom
flats themselves will not have any specific allocated parking space.
With regard to the issue of impact
on the area, the prevailing pattern of development in the area is high density
development both in terms of recent and established development. The site effectively stands between a recent
development of terraced houses on the former Body-Tec which abuts to the north
and the existing Housing Association development which both fronts Arctic Road
and has a service road to its rear which abuts to the south. Also the development opposite the site is in
the form of traditional long-standing former Council development in the form of
maisonettes whilst further to the south east, again fronting Arctic Road, are
traditional Victorian terraced houses.
Given the above description I am
fully satisfied that this is an ideal site for this high density proposal which
along with its ideal location makes it an ideal site for this type of
residential development.
In terms of impact on immediate
neighbouring sites, abutting the southern boundary for the most part is a long
rear garden of property No. 32 Newport Road.
Applicants have in terms of the one-bedroom flats avoided any windows
within the south facing elevation overlooking this garden. In terms of the remainder of the development
the impact on neighbouring properties is no worse than those indicated on the
extant consent for this site.
It should also be remembered that
although the garage which abuts the site to the west is still effectively in
that use it has been subject of approvals in the recent past for a block of 12
flats being granted in October 1992 and renewed in April 1998.
With regard to the issue of
affordable housing the current extant consent is subject to a condition
requiring provision of two affordable housing units. The low level of provision was considered to be the best that could
be achieved given that there was approval for a total of 19 units on the site
on which there was no requirement for affordable housing because of the grant
of that consent prior to the Affordable Housing Policy coming into operation.
This proposal to further increase
the density presented an opportunity to increase the level of affordable
housing provision. The initial proposal
indicated 5 one-bedroom flats in a three storey block, however following
concern expressed by the Council's Housing Officer the unsuitability of that
type of accommodation in the form indicated, the applicants were encouraged to
re-visit that proposal and although they have reduced the number of affordable
housing units from 5 to 3 the 3 units that are now being provided are
appropriate in level and size of accommodation. Indeed the Housing Association which manage the adjoining site to
the south are almost certainly going to be the nominated Association to take
these affordable housing units on board, hence their statement that they would
provide the 3 parking spaces for these units within their own current land
ownership. Whilst there are no
guarantees I am confident in this instance this will occur should approval be
granted.
In terms of any other issues these
are summarised as follows:-
The drainage issue on this site as
with many urban brown field sites was thoroughly considered and resolved when
dealing with the extant consent. The
outcome of those deliberations were that there is a likely capacity problem
within Arctic Road and that a condition was applied requiring the submission of
calculations to establish whether or not the developer would need to increase
the size of the sewer in Arctic Road in conjunction with Southern Water's
approval. Southern Water at that time
confirmed that there were no reported flooding problems caused by the current
drainage systems.
Also at the time of that application
the ground investigations were carried out in respect of the site which
indicated the traditional trench filled foundations would be acceptable and
therefore it is likely that auger piles systems for foundations would be used.
In terms of planning policies
regarding financial contributions, this proposal will fall under the auspices
of the Transport Infrastructure Payment Policy and also Education and Open
Space contributions. Therefore any
approval of this application will be subject of a Section 106 Agreement
requiring the following payments:-
Transport Infrastructure payment
- 7 x £750 = £5250
Education payment - 7 x £900 = £6300
Open Space payment - 7 x £290 = £2030
Total - £13580
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the
Evaluation section of this report, I am satisfied that this intensity of
development is appropriate for this particular site given its location in
relation to the town centre and the general prevailing pattern of high density
development in the area. I consider it
will satisfy housing need in the area and will contribute economically to the
Cowes town centre.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
(REVISED PLANS) SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 OR SECTION 111 AGREEMENT COVERING THE PROVISION OF 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS IN LINE WITH COUNCIL POLICY H14,
THE PAYMENT OF £5250 (7 x £750) IN RESPECT
OF THE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PAYMENT, THE PAYMENT OF £6300 (7 X £900) IN
RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION FACILITIES AND THE PAYMENT OF £2030 (7 X
£290) TOWARDS UPGRADING OF LOCAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The premises shall not
be occupied until the access and/or visibility splays as shown on the
approved plan have been provided. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3 |
Access splay -
J32 |
|
4 |
Any gates to be
provided shall be set back a distance of 5 metres from the edge of the
carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Prior to occupation of the
development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be
lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the
whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than
1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
6 |
Prior to completion of
the development, space shall be provided within the site for a minimum of 21
parking spaces. None of the 17
terraced houses or 2 maisonettes shall be occupied on an individual basis
unless they are provided with a minimum of one parking space including
turning and access facilities. All
parking spaces shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles only and
shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure adequate
parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply with
Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations)
and Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Provision of turning area -
K40 |
|
8 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity
studies have been submitted to and agreed to the Local Planning Authority
indicating the means of foul and surface water drainage disposal. Any such
agreed drainage system shall indicate connection at a point on the existing
combined system where there is adequate capacity. No houses or flats hereby
approved shall be occupied until such an agreed system has been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate
system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in
compliance with Policy U11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Detail external roofing/facing
finishing - S02 |
|
10 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials
and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings
are occupied. Development shall be
carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of
maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Before the development
hereby permitted is commenced details of the surface treatments to the
turning areas and parking areas shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. Any such agreed surface treatment shall be carried
out in accordance with those agreed details and shall be retained and
maintained thereafter. Any such agreed scheme shall differentiate the surface
treatments of the parking areas from the turning areas. It shall include for provision of a
textured finish and landscaped areas within mixed beds including planting
schedules. Reason: To ensure an adequate
standard of parking and turning in the interests of the amenities of the
occupiers in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
The development shall
not be occupied until a 1.8 metre wide footway across the whole frontage of
the site has been constructed in accordance with agreed details as indicated
on submitted plans. Reason: To ensure an adequate
standard of footway for the proposed development in compliance with Policy
TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
The gradient of the
access drive shall not exceed 1 in 8. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
Prior to commencement
of works full details shall be submitted at a scale not less than 1:20 of the
proposed external staircase serving the 6 one bedroom flats hereby approved.
Such details shall include appropriate screening on the north facing element of
the staircase. The 6 one bedroom flats hereby approved shall not be occupied
until the staircase has been completed. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the future occupiers and neighbouring property owners in
compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
15 |
Contaminated land - need for
scheme - T01 |
|
16 |
The scheme required by
condition 15 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. |
|
17 |
Contamin land - scheme to be
carried out - T03 |
|
3. |
TCP/08671/D P/00176/04 Parish/Name: Cowes
Ward: Cowes Central Registration Date: 06/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr H Wheeler Demolition of detached
garage; construction of detached
house, (revised scheme) land between 11-15, Newport Road,
Cowes, PO31 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Following consultation under the
delegated procedure, the Local Member, Councillor Buckle, has looked at the
site and indicated it "seems a bit small" to him and lacks car
parking. Therefore, he has requested that the application is referred to the
Committee for consideration.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 16 weeks to date and has gone beyond
the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to
case officer workload, the need to obtain revised drawings and the requirement
of the local Member for it to be considered by Committee.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site is roughly rectangular with
frontage of 9 metres to the south side of Newport Road, a depth of 36.5 metres,
and is located opposite Arctic Park.
Site is flanked on either side by three storey dwelling houses with
overall area predominantly residential
in character.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/8671/A - Conversion of 15
Newport Road to two self-contained flats, approved 2 May 1974.
TCP/8671/B - Outline for dwelling in
rear garden of 15 Newport Road refused on grounds of undesirable backland
development with bad arrangements of dwellings, 2 May 1974.
TCP/8671/C - Demolition of garage
and erection of very modern style detached house submitted September 2003 -
withdrawn by applicant October 2003.
DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION
Proposal involves construction of a
three storey detached four-bedroom house between Nos. 11 and 15 Newport
Road. Design is traditional with
semi-hexagon bay on front elevation on ground and first floor, and projecting
carport at street level. This is
possible as site is elevated above road.
Revised plans received showing reduction in size of landing and dressing
room windows in western elevation.
Dwelling would project total of 15.9 metres back into the site, which is
some 4 metres beyond the rear of No. 15 but 3.7 metres less than No. 11. Materials proposed to be used in
construction of the dwelling are red facing brick and self colour render to the
ground floor and bays with "Eternit" artificial slates and rolled
lead to the flat roof dormers in the side elevations.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is located within development
boundary as defined in Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:-
S1
- Development concentrated in urban areas.
S6
- High standards of design.
G1
- Development envelopes.
G4
- General locational criteria.
D1
- Standards of design.
D2
- Standards for development within the site.
H5
- Infill development.
TR7
- Highway considerations for new development.
TR16
- Parking policies and guidelines.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Comments of the Highways Engineer
were not requested as the access and parking facilities which plans show to be
retained for use by occupants of 15 Newport Road already exist.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cowes Town Council supports
proposal.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Adjoining occupier objects on
grounds that rear bay will be used as balcony which will overlook bedroom and
windows on north side will look into bedroom and bathroom.
CPRE accept principle of infill but
treatment of parking problem is wrong.
Newport Road congested and dangerous especially at night when unlit and
lined with unlit cars. They consider
that it would be appropriate to insist on off-street parking for both
properties, not just 15 Newport Road.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering
application are whether site is of adequate size to accommodate development
compatible with the surroundings and whether proposal would detract from
amenities of area and neighbouring properties.
Street scene is made up of reasonably
large buildings, with only substantial gap being the application site. There is considered to be no townscape
reason why this gap should not be developed, providing the building on it does
not impose in design terms on its neighbours and reflects the other design
themes in the area. In this case, the
buildings either side are substantial with accommodation on three floors and
with bay windows and vertical emphasis to front elevation. Design of proposed dwelling reflects these
features, and although a narrower building than its neighbours, reflects the
proportions of the semi-detached dwellings to the north. Scale, mass, materials and design of the
proposed building will harmonise with the street scene and comply with Policies
S6, G4, D1 and H5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Building is designed with landing
and dressing room windows only in side elevations. These can be required by condition to be obscure glazed to avoid
any potential overlooking of the sides of the neighbouring dwellings. Property to east has limited fenestration in
side elevation and that to the west even less.
I do no consider there would be any major impact on outlook, privacy or
amenity from the proposed dwelling sufficient to warrant refusal of the
application. There is no indication
that the roof of the rear bay would be used as a balcony, but a condition can
be imposed to ensure this does not occur in the future. I consider that with regard to effect on
neighbours, the proposal complies with Policies G4, D1 and H5 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
There is existing vehicular access
into the site and on-street parking in the vicinity. No conflict is anticipated with Policies TR7 or TR16. In amenity terms, it is undesirable for the
parking space for 15 Newport Road to be located immediately outside the main
front window to the new property, therefore a condition is suggested to ensure
that this space is used in connection with the new property only. As site is within Parking Zone 2, there is
no objection in principle to No. 15 not having dedicated off-street parking.
Proposal makes best use of urban land and is considered acceptable.
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 which the proposed new dwelling
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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations as detailed in this
report, the proposal to erect a detached dwelling between Nos. 15 and 11
Newport Road, Cowes is considered to be acceptable in principle, relating
reasonably in scale, mass and design to adjoining buildings. The revised plans and appropriate conditions
minimise any adverse effects on adjoining occupiers to a degree where refusal
would not be justified. I therefore
recommend approval with appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION - Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
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. |
|
3 |
The roof areas of the
bay window on the rear elevation and the porch element on the north elevation
of the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden
or similar amenity area without the grant of further specific permission from
the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of
the amenities of the adjoining properties and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The windows in the
north and south elevation shall be permanently fixed (non-opening) and shall
be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and
maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy
of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of
Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Withdrawn PD right for
windows/dormers - R03 |
|
6 |
Notwithstanding the
submitted details, any off-street car parking space provided within the
application site defined in red edge on the application plan attached to and
forming part of this Decision Notice, shall be used in connection with the
property hereby approved and not 15 Newport Road, Cowes or any other
property, unless the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority is
obtained in writing. Reason: In the interests of the amenities
of the occupiers of the dwelling hereby approved and in compliance with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4. |
TCP/09028/N P/00020/04 Parish/Name: Gurnard
Ward: Gurnard Registration Date: 23/01/2004 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr & Mrs N Ward Outline for a dwelling land adjacent The Old Barn, Rew
Street, Cowes, PO31 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Local Member, Councillor Mundy, has
requested that application is considered by Committee shortly after publicity
of the application, he lodged a letter of support on grounds that the design of
the proposed building would blend in extremely well.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the
processing of which has taken 15 weeks and 5 days to date. The processing of this application has gone
beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application
because of Officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to a
rectangular shaped site currently used for agricultural purposes. It is located on the western side of Rew
Street, approximately 85 metres north of its junction with West View Road and
immediately south of a converted barn.
Directly opposite is Rew Street Farmhouse, being a substantial property
constructed of natural stone. Rew
Street can be described as a rural lane comprising of small scattered groups of
dwellings with occasional properties sporadically sited in between.
Immediate area of interest has
frontage of some 300 metres on western side of Rew Street, immediately north of
West View Road. This comprises of eight
properties fronting onto Rew Street.
Six of these form a smaller group some 130 metres north of application
site and are therefore regarded as visually independent from the plot in
question. The application site is
situated in a 60 metre wide gap between the converted barn and a modern detached
bungalow.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/9028K/M/2945 - Outline for
dwelling. Consent refused August 1987.
TCP/9028L/M/3614 - Outline for
dwelling and garage. Consent refused
January 1988.
TCP/9028M/M/4995 - Outline for
dwelling and garage. Refused August
1988 and dismissed on appeal in June 1989.
All applications were refused on
grounds of policy and principle owing to the site being outside of the
development envelope.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This is an outline application
requesting that matters of external appearance, siting and means of access are
considered at this stage. Plans show an
irregular shaped building, part single and part two storey. The dwelling itself would be "T"
shaped and have the appearance of a barn.
Connected to the foot of the "T" would be a single storey wing
comprising of two stables, tack room and office. The proposed building would mainly be clad in weather boarding on
a natural stone plinth under a clay tiled roof.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is outside of any development
envelope boundary defined on the Unitary Development Plan. The following policies of the Plan are
considered to be relevant:
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.
G2
- Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development
envelopes.
G5
- Development outside defined settlements.
D1
- Standards of Design.
D2
- Standards for development within the site.
H9
- Residential development outside development boundaries.
B2
- Settings of Listed Buildings.
C1
- Protection of landscape character.
TR7
- Highways considerations for new development.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends refusal
on grounds of inadequate access and traffic generation.
The Council's Conservation Officer
makes the following comment:
"I appreciate that
this is an outline application, but it is difficult to judge the size and scale
of the proposed building in relation to the existing buildings, which are not
indicated on the plans. My impression
is that the proposal would be significantly larger and may therefore dominate
the existing buildings.
I am concerned that the
proposed dwelling would extend the residential curtilage and associated clutter
and would adversely affect the rural setting of the Listed farm buildings. The new building would also be a prominent
feature in views of the Listed Buildings from the south. Boundary treatments, possible outbuildings,
hard surfacing and residential clutter would also need to be carefully
controlled."
Contamination Officer recommends
conditions should consent be granted.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gurnard Parish Council object on
grounds that the site is outside the development envelope, inadequate access
onto a bend, out of keeping with surrounding dwellings, and land stability
concerns owing to proximity to pond.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Local Member supports on grounds
that the proposal would, in his opinion, blend in extremely well.
Four letters received objecting on
grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Three letters received expressing
support on grounds that the proposal would enhance rather than detract from the
current environment, that the access has excellent views in both directions and
that this proposal would constitute infill.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The site is outside of any
development envelope. I therefore
regard principle to be the main determining factor, with matters relating to
access arrangements, effect on setting of adjoining Listed Building and rural
character of area as other important material considerations.
In terms of principle, Policy H9
does list six categories of residential development that may be acceptable
outside of development boundaries.
Since the proposed dwelling is not a replacement, not for an
agricultural worker, or a conversion, or a tourist related development, or an
affordable home, it is my view that the only criterion worthy of further
consideration relates to infill development.
The recognised definition of such is the infilling of a small gap in an
otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.
Rew Street is a scattered settlement
of numerous properties and farmholdings in several small groups along a country
road in generally open and attractive countryside. The application site is at the northern end of the largest
central group of properties which, although generally built up, does in my opinion still retain a predominantly
rural character. This is particularly
the case where the application site is concerned as the proposed plot comprises
of a large gap between a converted barn and a bungalow, immediately behind a
restored pond. Having regard to the
scattered layout of dwellings along this immediate section of Rew Street
together with the overall width of application site and vacant land to the
south, it is my opinion that the proposal does not constitute acceptable
infilling and is therefore in conflict with Policy H9.
Policy TR7 states that development
shall be served by safe and acceptable access.
The Highway Engineer considers this not to be the case owing to
inadequate visibility and generation of traffic.
Members will note that the converted
barn immediately north of the application site is Listed. Policy B2 refers to settings of Listed
Buildings and states that proposals which adversely affect the appearance,
setting and/or the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted. The submitted indicative plan shows that
design of the proposed dwelling would reflect the barn-like appearance of
nearby farm buildings and may appear acceptable in this respect. It is appreciated that this is an outline
application, but it is difficult to judge the size and scale of the proposed
building in relation to the existing buildings which are not indicated on the
submitted plans. It would appear that
the proposed dwelling would be significantly larger and may therefore dominate
the adjoining Listed Building. I am
also concerned that the proposed development would extend the residential
curtilage and associated paraphernalia and therefore adversely affect the rural
setting of the nearby Listed farm buildings.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed development conflicts
with Policy B2.
Concern has been expressed regarding
adequacy of drainage system and suitability of building in proximity to a
pond. Neither of these are considered
worthy of separate reasons for refusal
as both can be dealt with at the Building Control stage. Building Control Surveyor has confirmed that
the distance between proposal and pond together with appropriately designed
foundations would render any ground stability concerns as insignificant.
To summarise, proposal does not
satisfy any of the criteria listed under Policy H9, will be likely to affect
the setting of the adjoining Listed Building, and would add unduly to the
hazards of other highway users.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to
the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to the material considerations discussed in this report, the
proposal would represent unacceptable development in the countryside, as well
as adding unduly to the hazards of other highway users. In the absence of further information, it is
also considered that the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the
adjoining Listed Building. The proposal
is therefore contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies.
RECOMMENDATION - Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside
the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an
undesirable intensification of development would be prejudicial to the rural
character of the area and therefore contrary to Strategic Policy S1
(Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas) and Policies G1 (Development Envelopes
for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered
Settlements Outside Development Envelopes), G4 (General Locational Criteria
for Development) and G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The site lies outside
the defined development envelope and no justification has been established to
show why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable development in the
countryside as defined in Policy G5 (Development outside Defined Settlements)
and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing
Urban Areas) and Policies H9 (Residential Development Outside Development
Boundaries) and G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
In the absence of a
suitable street scene showing the relationship between the proposed dwelling
and the adjoining Listed barn conversion, it is considered that the proposal
would compromise the character and quality of this Listed Building and would
therefore be contrary to Policy B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Generation of Traffic - onto
public high - Z11B |
|
5 |
The access is unsatisfactory
to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility and
would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5. |
TCP/09309/G P/02224/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge
Ward: Bembridge South Registration Date: 19/11/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Mrs E M Rodwell Demolition of bungalow and garage;
detached house; alterations to vehicular/pedestrian access (revised plans) 24 Howgate Road, Bembridge, Isle
Of Wight, PO355QW |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member,
Councillor Kendall, who opposes this application on grounds of proposal
contrary to Policies G4, D1, D2, H5, C2.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the
processing of which has taken 25 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed
8 week period for determination of planning applications due to the submission
of revised plans and the need for additional publicity.
LOCATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to a
rectangular shaped site measuring 67.5 metres by 18.5 metres being situated on
the south eastern side of Howgate Road towards the edge of the development
envelope boundary of Bembridge. At the
present time, there is a modest bungalow on the site which is set back from the
road. There is a large well screened
garden, the plot itself is reasonably flat with a gentle slope down to the
road. There are far reaching views to
the coastline beyond the rear garden.
The neighbouring dwelling to the
east (No. 26) is a modest bungalow and the property to the west (No. 22 - La
Coquille) is a two storey dwelling set further back from other development in
this line of dwellings. Howgate Road is
a residential area, containing a mixture of dwelling types and sizes with
properties on the eastern side benefiting from good sized gardens.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/9309/E - Demolition of bungalow
and garage; outline for two detached houses with integral garages; alterations
to vehicular access - refused 27 June 2002.
TCP/9309/F - Demolition of dwelling;
detached house with double garage, garden store and wood store; alterations to
vehicular/pedestrian access - refused 13 February 2003. Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate -
dismissed 6 October 2003.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This application seeks full consent
for demolition of bungalow and garage; detached house; alterations to
vehicular/pedestrian access. Plans show
existing modest bungalow of similar proportions to neighbouring No. 26. The proposed new dwelling is set further
back in the plot in a more comparable position with No. 22. The proposal is a conventional two storey
dwelling with materials shown to be natural slate roof with a mixture of
natural stone, facing brick work, contrasting brick quoins finishes. There is a balcony to be located centrally
at first floor level in the rear elevation.
Accommodation to be provided is garage, kitchen, utility room, dining
hall, w.c., study and living room at ground floor, four bedrooms, en-suite and
bathroom at first floor.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is situated within the
development envelope for Bembridge, in an area of outstanding natural beauty in
parking zone 4 as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. Relevant policies are as follows:
S1 New
development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S6 All
development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.
S10 If
it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.
G1
Development
Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4
General Locational
Criteria for Development.
D1
Standards of
Design.
D2
Standards for
Development Within the Site.
C2
Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
H5
Infill
Development.
TR7 Highway
Considerations for New Development.
TR16 Parking
Policies and Guidelines.
C12 Development
Affecting Trees and Woodland.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommend conditions if approved.
Bembridge Parish Council recommend
refusal and consider the position, mass, design and external appearance of the
proposal will be an intrusive development, out of character with the prevailing
pattern of development in the locality.
The development fails to protect and enhance an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. Also express concerns
about ground instability of the site.
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Officer appreciate applicants have amended further the size, design and overall
impact of the proposed dwelling.
Although the proposal still represents a considerable increase in comparison
with the current bungalow, it is not disproportionate with some of the
properties in Howgate Road.
Tree Officer comment pending.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Local Member considers application
unacceptable and objects. Considers
changes not significant enough to overcome Council's and Appeal Inspector's
reasons for refusing previous application.
Revisions represent significant improvement but footprint is
considerably larger than existing. Out
of keeping, conflicts with Policies G4, D2 due to size, scale mass, form
footprint. Balcony still included
contrary to Policy D1, H5. Cannot
understand AONB change in view - limited reduction, contrary to C2.
Local Member requests if minded to
approve application, permitted development rights be removed. Bembridge needs smaller affordable homes,
but proposal does not best meet the needs of local people.
In respect of the revised plans,
five letters have been received; two of these are from one adjoining property
objecting to the application, two of these are from the other adjoining
property one letter is in support and one letter objects which appear to
conflict. One further letter is from
another local resident.
Objections can be summarised as
follows:
Pleased scale now been considerably
reduced, still imposing from cliff path
and detrimental effect on rural scene.
The letter in support of the
application confirms seen amended application and no objections to it. Happy that our previous concerns have been
addressed and are adequately reflected in the new plans. This letters has been reported to Members,
although subsequently objection from same persons, letter of support not
withdrawn.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The site is within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and development envelope for Bembridge and
therefore, in general terms, acceptable for a replacement dwelling. The main consideration is the effect of the
proposed development on the character of development in the locality and the
residential amenities of neighbouring residents, particularly in terms of
outlook and loss of privacy and the effect of the proposals on the appearance
of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
In the Inspectorate's Appeal
Decision dated October 2003, the
Inspector considered the impact on No. 22 would be some loss of view and
likelihood of increased overlooking and loss of privacy in the garden but not
sufficient to justify a refusal. The
Inspector was concerned regarding the length and scale of the proposal within
one metre of the boundary with No. 26 resulted in proposal being seriously
oppressive and dominating to the outlook of this neighbouring dwelling. Due to the proximity to the boundary
Inspector was concerned that there
would be increased activity giving rise to increased noise, disturbance and
loss of privacy. There was further
concern that the balcony gave rise to overlooking and loss of privacy to rear
garden areas of neighbouring properties.
With regard to the effect on the AONB, he concluded that existing
screening could be supplemented at the front and rear but that the dwelling
which would be substantially larger than existing and neighbouring dwellings
would have a greater visual impact from both road and cliff top walk to the
detriment of visual amenity of the AONB.
The current scheme has been
significantly reduced in footprint; in particular it has been moved two metres
off the boundary with No. 26 and reduced in depth on this side, the design has
been simplified and the height of the ridge has been reduced to minimise
potential impact on the wider locality.
The balcony has been centrally sited which minimises the potential for
overlooking of neighbouring gardens.
Dwellings on the south eastern side
of Howgate Road are mixed in styles but generally of modest scale. The front walls of the existing modest sized
bungalow and detached garage on site are roughly in line with the rear
elevation of the adjoining bungalow to the east (No. 26). La Coquille (No. 22) is well set back behind
the existing building. When comparing
the existing arrangement with the current proposal, it is accepted that the new
dwelling will be set back from the street scene further than much of the
development in Howgate Road, however it will sit more compatible with La
Coquille. The submitted street scene
drawing illustrates this relationship, although it should be noted that
existing landscape has been removed for clarity.
With regard concern relating to publicity
of revised plans, on registration of the application in November, it was
advertised in the local press, a site notice was displayed and neighbour
notification carried out. In respect of
the revision received in March 2004 neighbours and interested parties who had
commented on the original submission were notified. I am satisfied that the publicity has been adequately carried
out.
Turning to the impact on the AONB,
given the AONB comment and overall reduction in this scheme, it is considered a
refusal on AONB grounds would not be substantiated.
Ground stability concerns raised by
Parish Council have not been identified as an issue in the previous
refusal. Building Control comment that
this is not a known area of instability and any issues would be dealt with at
Building Regulation stage.
With regard the likely impact on
neighbouring amenity, in particular outlook and privacy, and considering
firstly the impact on No. 26, the reduction in scale of the development on the
eastern side and distance off the boundary in my view gives weight in favour of
proposal. Any overlooking from the
front elevation of the property will be minimal and from the rear balcony
limited due to its central siting. The
impact on La Coquille will be some loss of view and likelihood of increased
overlooking and loss of privacy in the garden but not sufficient to justify a
refusal. Loss of view and precedent
should not carry any weight in the determination of this application.
To conclude, it is accepted that the
current scheme although reduced in scale and footprint does represent a
considerable increase on what exists and a new concept of development of this
plot. However given the mix of
dwellings in Howgate Road, the siting being well set back presenting minimal
impact on the street scene, it is considered that the dwelling can be
accommodated in this plot. It is
therefore my opinion that there is now marginal weight in favour of this
development. I am of the opinion that
the development will not unduly damage the environment of neighbouring
properties or surrounding area and landscape character in general and am
therefore satisfied that this proposal is acceptable and complies with policy
and that the previous refusal reasons and dismissal on appeal have been overcome.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the
manner proposed. Insofar as there is an
interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to the material considerations discussed in this report, I
am of the opinion that the scheme under consideration has satisfactorily
overcome the previous refusal and the site can accommodate this scheme; the
objections raised do not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the recommendation
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The materials to be
used for the external finishes of the development hereby approved shall be as
detailed on the plans and application details accompanying this decision
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials
and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building
is occupied. Development shall be
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. |
|
4 |
Prior to occupation of
the development hereby approved the areas of land hatched yellow on the plan
attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be lowered
providing embankment 600 mm in height above ground level this shall be
retained thereafter, no structural erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs
etc. shall be permitted within this area. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The area of land shown
green on the plan accompanying this decision notice shall be reserved for
future highway improvements and any boundary works shall be set back to this
improvement line. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The access and crossing
of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with
the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the
development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for
light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Provision of turning area -
K40 |
|
8 |
On the day on which the
dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied for residential purposes, the
existing dwelling on the application site shall cease to be used for any
purpose; and within 3 months of that day the original dwelling shall be
demolished and the resultant materials removed from the site. Reason: Two units of accommodation
are unacceptable on site and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
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. |
|
10 |
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 at first floor level on
the eastern and western elevations. 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. |
|
11 |
Withdraw PD rights
alterat/extens/etc - R02 |
|
12 |
The trees shown on
drawing no: 2002/41.3 shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
visual amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6. |
TCP/13519/F P/02094/03 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ryde South East Registration Date: 24/10/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Dalton Property Limited Two/three storey building to
provide 12 flats including accommodation within roof space on third floor
fronting Star Street rear of 41/42 High Street and
adjacent 5, Star Street, Ryde, PO33 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Application has proved
particularly contentious in respect of design and access issues both of which
result in the need for Committee determination in this case.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a major
application the processing of which will have taken 29 weeks to date. The
processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed period due to
protracted negotiations attempting to achieve improved footpath provision in
Star Street.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a
site on the west of, to east of and to south of an existing sub station located
on the southern side of Star Street virtually opposite the cinema. Site forms
part of the curtilage of properties 41/42 High Street which abuts to the west
being on the south eastern corner of the junction of Star Street with High
Street. Properties 41 and 42 is a three storey structure having a restaurant
use on the ground floor.
Site has been the subject
of demolition work which has had the effect of exposing adjoining development.
Star Street itself is a
one way street in a east west direction towards the High Street and has a
carriageway width of approximately 4.2 metres and the footpath width of just in
excess of 1 metre on its southern side where it fronts the application site.
Adjoining to the east is a relatively small scale cottage dwelling number 5
Star Street. Members will be familiar with the cinema building and its
adjoining neighbouring buildings all of which are substantial in height and
mass.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In April 2004 consent
granted for new shop front, internal alterations and rebuilding of rear
extension in respect of 41-42 High Street, Ryde.
In August 2003
Conservation Area Consent was granted for the demolition of single storey
outbuildings. Site inspection indicates that these demolition works have been
carried out as described above.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Detailed consent is
sought for 2/4 storey block with third
floor accommodation being within the roof to be constructed around the
aforementioned sub station and to provide the following accommodation.
Ground floor 3 two bedroom units
First floor 2 two bedroom units, 2 bed sit units
Second floor 1 two bedroom unit, 2 bed sit units
Third floor 2 one bedroom flats
Total 12 units.
Major element of the
proposal is 4 storeys in height with the 2 storey element being located at the
eastern end of the site adjacent the existing 2 storey cottage number 5 Star
Street. This element of the proposal to have its frontage set back a minimum
1.7 metres off edge of carriageway.
The main 3 storey element
to be constructed along the back edge of existing footpath in line with
previous buildings on the site. Proposal provides for 3 front entrance doors
one on the eastern side of the sub station and the other two directly adjoining
41 High Street on the Star Street frontage with the entrance doors in this case
being recessed by approximately 0.5 of a metre.
Design of the building is
traditional with windows being of sash proportions and include two feature
projecting aurial bays at first floor level. Third floor accommodation is
within the roof space and lit by way of semi-circular headed dormers. Proposal
provides for a strong plinth and horizontal moulded features at first and
second floor level finished with a strong parapet wall structure behind which
is a pitched hipped roof.
The two storey element as
previously described also has a plinth which terminates at cill level of the
ground floor level and is finished in a hipped roof.
In terms of materials
ground floor of the three storey element to be finished in decorated render
with the remaining floors to be in a buff brick with rendered banding and surrounds.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site stands directly
the east and abuts the Ryde town centre boundary and the small element of the
western area of the site is within the Ryde Conservation Area.
National policies covered
in PPG3 Housing March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:
PPG15 Planning and the
Historic Environment covers issues relating to development within or adjacent
to Conservation Areas and relevant points are as follows:
Relevant local plan
policies are as follows:
Strategic Policies S1,
S2, S6, S7 are appropriate.
Other relevant policies
are as follows:
G1 Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages
G4 General Locational Criteria for Development
D1 Standards of Design
D2 Standards for Development Within the Site
B6 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
H1 Major New
residential Developments to be Located within the Main Island Towns
H4 Unallocated
Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements
TR16 Parking Policies
and Guidelines
TR7 Highway
Considerations for New Development
U11 Infrastructure and Services Provision.
Site is located within
parking zone 1 of the Unitary Development Plan where no on site parking wither
operational or non-operational would be allowed.
Reference is also made to
recent Housing Needs Survey the conclusions of which acknowledged the need for
single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand
for 2 and 3 bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.
Finally Members attention
is drawn to Councils transport infrastructure payment policy which is
triggered by this development and therefore this proposal will result in a
payment of £9000 (12 x £750).
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
recommends conditions requiring control of window openings on the ground floor
to avoid obstruction of the footpath and the provision of cycle parking in
respect of a minimum of 12 spaces.
English Heritage comments
are summarised as follows:
Important to relate this proposal
to the block on the corner of Star Street and High Street pointing out that the
current shop front on ground floor on this corner is of very poor design.
Consider that efforts should be made to replace this with a more attractive and
appropriate shop front to give a visual lift to the corner with this
application possibly providing the impetuous to achieve this.
Some concerns relating to
the location of the sub station in proximity to this proposed development.
Considered that the
design in terms of height was not unacceptable initial proposals were
considered poor in terms of fenestration and roof forms along with relationship
between the frontage block and the new.
It was considered that
there should be recess break between old and new block and that the hierarchy
of windows on the principle frontage should be considered carefully to avoid a
bland appearance.
Criticism of the original
dormers which did not articulate the vertical window emphasis below and were
particularly heavy in appearance appearing bolted on rather than an inherent
part of the roof construction.
Built form would benefit
from a narrower roof span model with current proposal being rather bulky in
form.
Overall English Heritage
considered the design needed some improvement.
Some correspondence has
taken place with Scottish and Southern Energy regarding the possibility of
adjusting the existing frontage onto Star Street in order to achieve an
increased footpath width. The following is the reply to that consultation.
This letter is in
response to our earlier conversation regarding the footpath width at Star
Street, Ryde.
The Southern Electric sub
station in question cannot be reduced in size due to the location of existing
high voltage and low voltage equipment and cable.
Specific consultation has
also been carried out with the Highway Engineer regarding the possibility of
reducing the carriageway width in Star Street and its junction with High Street
in order to provide a wider footway. His response is as follows:
Although this is a
sensible suggestion in lieu of the heavy pedestrian traffic in this area I do
not think that it can be safely initiated at this time. Having spoken to our
traffic section it does not appear that the scheme is in place to implement
such work. Additionally such a reduction in carriageway width would be
unacceptable due to the double decker bus service operating around this tight
corner and the existing narrow carriage way width. As I recall limited external
works are taking place to facilitate this development and as such no land
within the site could be utilised. In summary it is the opinion of the Highways
department that although a scheme of this nature would be beneficial available
space, traffic types, carriageway widths and the extent of this application
would not allow a suitable scheme to be implemented at this time.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of concern
received from adjoining property owner in Star Street expressing concern at
close proximity of the proposed block to her property which will create
difficulties in her carrying out maintenance to her property with particular
reference to her roof.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Principle
This is a typical urban
brown field site centrally located and therefore ideal for this type of fairly
intensive flatted development. The intensity of the development is reflected in
the high density (400 units per hectare) and also reflects government policies
to encourage new households in town centres in order to bring new life into
those centres thus contributing to their vitality and viability.
Layout/Pedestrian Access
This proposal apart from
some areas set aside for courtyard purposes does represent intensive ground
coverage with its relationship to the existing footpath along frontage boundary
being virtually the same as the previous structures which stood on the site.
It is fair to state that the
existing footpath on this side of Star Street and even on the opposite side are
narrow and it was hoped that this proposal would provide an opportunity to
widen that footpath by setting the proposed development further back. The
problem with this site however is the encumbrance of the sub station which
would also need to be set further back in order to make any wider footpath
effective in terms of improved public use. Members however will note from the
reaction of the Wayleave Officer representing Scottish and Southern Energy that
technically this is not economically possible with the cost factors being
significant.
Having failed to achieve
the improved footpath width by adjusting the layout on the site attempts were
made to achieve this by reducing the carriageway width in Star Street in the
form of possible traffic calming.
Again Members will note
the Highway Engineers comment that the particular circumstances of Star Street
with its existing narrow carriageway width makes this impractical to achieve
particularly given the fact that it is used by double decker buses etc.
Applicants have pointed
out that where they have had the opportunity to improve things they have done
so referring to the fact that two storey block adjacent to number 5 Star Street
has been set back to increase the width of the footpath at that point.
Applicants themselves consulted with the electricity company and were given the
same advice. Applicants also point out that it is not possible to widen the
footpath adjacent to the existing restaurant building where it extends to the
junction with the High Street.
I am satisfied
unfortunately that all avenues have been explored with a view to improving the
footpath width and that I can go no further on this issue.
The applicants have where
the door entrances exit onto the narrow footpath recessed those entrances so
those door openings do not open directly onto the narrow footpath.
In terms of internal open
space the proposal does provide for two small courtyard areas either end of the
site which I understand will function as communal courtyard for future
occupiers.
Design, Mass & Impact
Again this sites
location close to the town centre and viewable from the Conservation Area the
external design of the development has been the subject of some negotiation
which has included the Conservation and Design Team. The comments of English
Heritage echoed to a large degree the concerns of the Conservation Team and
myself with regard to the initial design proposal.
Consequently negotiations
have resulted in the submission of revised elevations onto Star Street which
now reflect the general prevailing architectural pattern particular to Ryde
making reference to the use of a first floor projecting aurial bays, parapitted
roof finishes, horizontal banding courses and the use of quoins. I am satisfied
that providing good quality materials are used that this building will
contribute to the visual amenities of the area.
If Members are mindful to
approve the application I would suggest conditions relating to the use of
timber sash windows and the submission of appropriate details on window
treatments and their surrounds etc.
In terms of impact on any
neighbouring properties whilst acknowledging the concerns of the neighbouring
property in Star Street the position of the block relative to that property
reflects the urban location with this close proximity being a common feature in
the middle of town centres. It is also accepted that there will be some overlooking
from these flats in relation to existing residential accommodation nearby but
again this is a common feature in any in town development such as is being
proposed in this case.
I consider that this
proposal in its revised form satisfies the test of enhancing the Conservation
Area.
Members may consider that
the height of this block is excessive. However it is important to appreciate
that the accommodation at third floor level is very much set in the roof and in
terms of vertical height the proposal reflects in essence a 3 storey
development again compatible with the height and mass of buildings which
generally prevail in Ryde.
Accommodation
Members will note that
the accommodation not only includes 2 bedroom flats but also 4 bedsit flats all
of which is ideal for this type of location and hopefully will provide
available accommodation either for the first time buyer or provide ideal rented
accommodation within the town centre. All this assists in addressing the
Housing Needs Survey. The level of development on the site does not reach the
threshold to provide affordable housing for rent however the type of
development clearly lends itself to housing aimed at the lower income groups.
Financial Contribution
Members will note that
the site is within Zone 1 and therefore any provision of parking on the site
even if that could be achieved would have been contrary to policy. However the
location within Zone 1 does as suggested under policy section require a
transport infrastructure payment. Development would also attract a financial
contribution towards education and open space where open space cannot be
provide on site. In this regard the level of contribution would be £900 per unit
in respect of the education contribution and £290 per unit in respect of the
open space contribution. The education contribution is towards upgrading
education facilities in the area and the open space contribution relates to
monies which could be used to improve existing open space and recreation
facilities in the town. These would be further factors which would be covered
under the auspices of a Section 106 Agreement.
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 balanced with the right of the applicant to
develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the
evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the numerous unique
material considerations involved in this proposal have resulted in a
satisfactory proposal. Whilst accepting that negotiations have unfortunately
failed to improve the width of the existing footpath in all other respects
proposal in terms of its design, external appearance and general provision of
appropriate accommodation results in a scheme which should both contribute to
housing needs and visual amenity of the area. The range of units along with
design, mass and scale are considered appropriate in this case.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL
(REVISED PLANS)
SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 OR
SECTION 111 AGREEMENT COVERING THE PAYMENT OF THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTIONS:
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
PAYMENT 12 X £750 = £9,000
EDUCATION CONTRIBUTION 12 X £900 = £10,800
OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL CONTRIBUTION 12 X £290 =
£3,480
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Detail external roofing/facing
finishing - S02 |
|
3 |
Submission of samples -
S03 |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development
Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the rendered
surfaces to the buildings hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in
such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such colour shall be
retained and shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of
the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The development hereby
approved shall be constructed in such a manner that the doors or ground floor
windows do not obstruct or overhang the highway. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The dwelling 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 12 bicycles.
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. |
|
7 |
The doors/windows shall
be constructed of timber which shall either be stained or painted and such
windows shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities and character of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Before the development
hereby approved is commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20
shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing
construction and materials detailing in respect of the proposed new windows
and doors and any other external decorative features proposed. Reason: To secure a
satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the
character of the Conservation Area and to comply with Policy B6 (Protection
and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Prior to commencement
of work details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority indicating any screening and/or boundary treatments in respect of
the two courtyard areas indicated on the plan hereby approved. Such agreed
screening and boundary treatment shall be completed prior to occupation of
any of the dwelling units hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter in
accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of the
amenity of the future occupiers of the development hereby approved in
compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7. |
TCP/19216/D P/02248/03 Parish/Name: Newchurch
Ward: Newchurch Registration Date: 12/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Lower Knighton Landfill Ltd Renewal: Continued use of part of
sandpit landfill site for use as motocross track & siting of booking in
& refreshment huts land at Knighton Sandpit and
landfill site, Knighton Shute, Newchurch, Sandown, PO36 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application is a major submission
where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This application, if determined at
the 11 May meeting, will have taken 13 weeks for determination, the delay
attributed to excessive workload.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site has an area of
approximately 5.5 hectares, is of irregular shape, located approximately 300
metres east of Lower Knighton Farm, Knighton and approximately 700 metres from
Knighton Waterworks; approximately 1 kilometre from the edge of Newchurch Village
and approximately 400 metres from the northern extent of Alverstone Garden
Village. To the south of the site are
water meadows and the site, which slopes from north to south generally, is
greatly undulating within its boundaries, varying between 5 and 13 metre
contours, that includes a fairly steep valley.
The land rises gently to the north towards the downs, but in the
intervening land, is Knighton Sandpit, an active mineral site.
There is little substantial natural
growth on or surrounding the site although field hedgerow and tree line marks
the eastern boundary of the site and the line of the public footpath
(NC10). The north boundary abuts a
track leading to the adjoining sand excavation site. The remaining boundaries are not marked, although the entrance to
the site is marked by a chestnut paling fence.
The site itself has been laid out
and used for some time as a motocross track, winding at random through the
length of the site, and it is clear that much excavation and land moulding work
has taken place over the period the site has been used for motocross
purposes. It is also apparent that the
site is continuing to be used as an inert waste disposal site.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning application submitted in
February 1987 for landfilling and levelling, considered by the then Strategic
Planning Committee in June 1987 when it was resolved to grant approval subject
to a legal agreement. Application
related to the whole of the current application site plus additional land to
the west. Legal agreement concluded
requiring provision of a bond to cover costs and restoration of land, in
addition 20% of any costs involved in surface dressing, road maintenance and
reconstruction of Lower Knighton Road; not to commence work on any development
in advance of submission of a programme of working. Planning permission was issued on 29 June 1992 subject to
conditions in respect of the type of waste being deposited, submission of
detailed programme of working in respect of levels and final covering with
topsoil.
In February 1990 a second
application for sand extraction and backfilling was submitted. This referred to a smaller area of land,
approximately 2 hectares, 140 metres square and situated immediately to the
west and surrounded on the north, east and south sides by the application site,
with a right of way linking it to Lower Knighton Road. The site boundaries of the current
application site do not correlate exactly with the western boundaries of the
previous sites. Application considered
by the Strategic Planning Committee in November 1990 and subject to a legal
agreement similar to that of previous condition consent was issued in June
1992, simultaneous with former application decision subject to conditions. Permission for sand extraction expired in
June 1997 and work has ceased. Other
conditions permitted the installation of a building for machinery on site
requiring restoration with a minimum of 0.3 metres of topsoil; no extraction to
take place outside the limits of the application site; controlling hours of
operation, type of infill material, and also required details of restoration,
future uses etc. to be submitted, and allowing access for archaeologists and
the requiring of programme of working.
Both applications were implemented,
landfill is still progressing, although at a comparatively slow rate.
Planning permission was granted in
May 1996 for the use of the site as a motocross track and for temporary siting
of booking in and refreshment huts; temporary consent granted subject to
conditions and renewed in July 1998, expiring in December 2003. This permission was temporary, for a period
of five years, and was also subject to conditions limiting the maximum number
of events and practice days to a maximum of 24 days in any calendar year; controlling
the hours of operation; requiring certain safeguards on site as security, and
excluding the track extending into the extreme south western corner of the
site; requiring a 6 metre strip along the eastern boundary of the site to be
retained and landscaped, and preventing the use of any areas which have been
filled and landscaped for motocross racing.
Members will recall that, last year,
planning permission was granted for the use of land opposite Gore Cemetery at
Arreton for motocross racing and that, at the time, the intention was to move
the activity from the Knighton site to the then proposed site at Gore Cemetery.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
A renewal of permission is sought to
enable the continuation of the site for motocross racing for a further period
of 5 years. No additional detail has
been submitted and therefore the application should be determined purely as a
renewal of the previous regime.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Unitary Development Plan
Subject to Countryside Policies C1
and C2 as the site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; C10
as the site abuts a Site of Special Scientific Interest; to Leisure and Sport
Policies L2 and L9. The site is
un-notated; it is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and abuts
highways NC10 and NC35.
Unitary Development Plan policies:
"C1 -
Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must
maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from 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 is no alternative sites; or
(b)
specifically involve the maintenance or development of agriculture,
horticulture or forestry and/or 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, or upgrade an existing development, or
(e)
are within a defined development envelope."
"C10 - Development will not be permitted if it would be likely
to destroy or adversely affect, directly or indirectly, a Site of Special
Scientific Interest or National Nature Reserve."
"L2 -
Planning proposals for new buildings, extensions or improvements to formal
sports facilities, including all-weather floodlit pitches, will be accepted in
principle provided 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 a 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, temporary or time limited consent may be
considered appropriate."
Planning Policy Guidance
PPG7
(the countryside and the rural economy) acknowledges:
"...
tourism, sport and recreation play an important part 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".
PPG17
(planning for new open space and sport and recreational facilities).
"General
principles
20 - in
identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sport and recreational
facilities, Local Authorities should:
1. promote accessibility by walking, cycling
and public transport, and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with
disabilities;
2. locate more intensive recreational uses in
sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability;
3. avoid any significant loss of amenity to
resident, neighbouring uses or biodiversity;
4. improve the quality of the public realm through
good design;
5. look to provide areas of open space in
commercial and industrial areas;
6. add to and enhance the range of quality for
the existing facilities;
7. carefully consider security and personal
safety, especially with children;
8. meet the regeneration needs of areas, using
brownfield in preference to greenfield sites;
9. consider the scope for using any surplus
land for open space, sport or recreational use, weighting this against
alternative uses;
10. assess the impact of new facilities on
social inclusion; and
11. consider the recreational needs of visitors
and tourists."
PPG24
(planning and noise) refers to noisy developments 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 the facility."
In more
detailed advice, PPG24 continues by suggesting Local Planning Authorities
should take account of how frequently noise will be generated, how disturbing
it will be and balance of 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 &
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
Highway Engineer recommends
conditions if approved.
Environment Agency recommends
conditions if approved.
English Nature raise concerns in
respect of pollution from surface water run-off and from motor vehicle
oils/petrols etc.
Environmental Health Officer
considers that, in this instance, conditions imposed on previous permission are
appropriate.
AONB Unit questions suitability of
further renewal, pointing out that, if approved for a further five years, use
will have run for 12 years which is not a temporary consent in their view. In addition objects on grounds of adverse
impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; that the site at Arreton
(Gore Cemetery) was proposed as an alternative to this site which, at the time
that the Arreton site was proposed, it was stated that the Knighton site was
coming to an end due to continued landfill and that a renewal of permission
would not be sought in the event that the Gore Cemetery site was
successful. Furthermore, two motocross
sites within two and a half miles of each other would not be appropriate and
not conducive to AONB designation, but whilst raising objection, still
acknowledge the ability of the operators to use such sites for 14 days in any
12 month period under permitted development.
PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Newchurch Parish Council do not
object to the development but raise concerns in respect of non-compliance with
conditions.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters of objection on
grounds of visual and noise impact and adverse effect on the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.
32 letters of support for the
activities on site. These
representations are from persons living Islandwide and not necessarily from
local residents. They commonly have a direct interest in the operation of the
club either as spectators or participants.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
The relevant officer has been given
the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated, however, that there
will be any crime and disorder implications.
EVALUATION
The site has been used for some
years for motocross track racing, even before the planning permission was
granted first in May 1996, under permitted development rights. However, more frequent and more intensive
use of the site meant that the track was in situ on a permanent basis and land
moulding had been carried out which, cumulatively, meant that a material and
continuous change of use had occurred which warranted an application for
planning permission for the continued use in May 1996. The permission was subsequently renewed in
July 1998, expiring at the end of last year but, as Members will recall,
planning permission was granted for the other venue at Gore Cemetery.
When that application was submitted,
it was stated in the application that the Knighton site would not be renewed
due to the continued landfill at the site, the fact that the contours of the
site were now less interesting and therefore the application would not be
renewed. Temporary consent for the Gore
Cemetery site was duly granted, but it is pointed out that consent was granted
independently for the Gore Cemetery site and was not conditional nor dependent
upon the cessation of the use of the Knighton site.
It would appear that, within the
last year, the former Motocross organisation has split into two factions, those
who are essentially competition orientated and ride at Gore Cemetery, and those
who are not so competitive and ride more for fun, ride at Knighton. Since the motocross track has established
itself at Gore Cemetery and certainly since the last planning permission was
granted at Knighton, fairly substantial earthworks, adding substantial obstacles
throughout the length of the course, have been formed. These mounds which have been formed vary in
height up to and including one of approximately 6 metres. These have a significant impact on the
environment in visual terms but no details of land moulding were included
within the application, having been carried out without the benefit of planning
permission as an engineering operation some time in the last five years.
I consider the extent of engineering
operations which has taken place cannot be considered as immaterial and that,
had the application been made including detail of the amount of works, I do not
consider planning permission would be granted. Whilst I accept that planning
policy guidance suggests that sites like mineral workings should be considered
for this type of outdoor sport before other sites, it may be argued that the
continued use of the site for motocross racing prejudices the phased
reinstatement of the site and its eventual landscaping, and at present the
condition of the land detracts and adversely impacts on the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. In summary therefore, I
cannot support the scheme on the basis of the way the site has evolved in the
last few years, and recommend refusal.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation
to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set
out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right
to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
The impacts this
development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having regard to the material
considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, it is considered
that the condition of the site, the land moulding and the continued use for
motocross racing would prejudice the aims of the Unitary Development Plan in
protecting the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that in the absence of
adequate detail in terms of contours, sections and extent of land moulding,
insufficient information has been submitted for approval to be contemplated.
RECOMMENDATION - Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The continued use of
the site for motocross racing and the retention of the land moulding,
including hollows and jumps, fail to protect and enhance the special quality
of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under section of
87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the proposal would therefore be contrary to
Policy S10 (if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character
of these areas) and Policy C2 (areas of outstanding natural beauty) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The information
accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in
respect of finished land levels/contours and details of land moulding so that
the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the
proposal on the visual amenities of the area, and in the absence of further
details it is considered that the proposal is likely to prejudice adversely
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and wider countryside. |
|
8. |
TCP/21581/D P/00441/04 Parish/Name: Newport
Ward: Fairlee Registration Date: 27/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant: Alpha Group Isle of Wight Continued use of site for a taxi
operating centre and retention of associated buildings/structures Pt OS Parcel 8700, land at North
Fairlee Farm, Fairlee Road, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
During a recent
discussion with the Local Member, Councillor Andrew Mellor, he expressed
concerns regarding potential loss of employment of an Island business if a
suitable location could not be found from which applicant could operate. Therefore, he requested that this matter was
reported to the Committee for determination.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which has taken 10 weeks to date and has gone
beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to
the request from the Local Member that the matter is referred to Committee for
consideration.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to an
irregular shaped plot of land in corner of field to west of north Fairlee Road
and on the immediate western side of access road to Newport Waste Water
Treatment Works. Site is heavily screened on eastern boundary by existing
mature hedgerow with an access opening south of this field. Area has been
gravelled and incorporates two storage containers, one measuring 13 metres by
2.4 metres which is used for storage by the farmer and the second 6 metres by
2.5 metres which is used by the applicant, both are 2.5 metres high. A
portakabin in a drab green colour is sited in the area measuring 9.25 metres by
6.8 metres and 3.3 metres in height, which is used as an office.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/21581 Outline
consent granted December 1994 for a transit warehouse and use of land as
ancillary lorry park.
TCP/21581/A Approval of
reserved matters for warehouse, depot and lorry park granted December 1994.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought to
continue use of the site for a taxi operating centre and retention of
associated buildings/structures. Use
involves parking of vehicles at site when not in use and portakabin provides
radio control operator's room, a driver's rest room, kitchen, toilet and small
store. The submission was accompanied
by document produced by applicant's agent which provides information in support
of the proposal and is attached to this report as an appendix.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
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. Green field sites will only be
allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no
suitable alternative brown field sites exist.
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
D1 Standards of design
D14 Light spillage
E1 Promote suitably
located new employment uses
E8 Employment in the
countryside
C1 Protection of
landscape character
TR7 Highway
considerations for new development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
After liaising with
Highways department they do not wish to comment on this application as they are
of the opinion there are no highway implications.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Letter received from
Local Member, Councillor Mellor, supporting the application on the grounds
which can be summarised as follows:
Two letters received from
local residents objecting to the application on the grounds which can be
summarised as follows:
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in
considering application are whether use of site as a taxi operating centre is
acceptable in principle and whether it is appropriate development in the
countryside.
Members will recall that
following a decision made at Development Control Committee, 22 July 2003, an
Enforcement Notice was served on Alpha Taxis regarding the operation of a taxi business from 34 Mayfield Drive,
Newport. This Notice was served on 11 September 2003 requiring the cessation of
the operation of a taxi business at the site with the exception of one radio
operator who may operate the taxi radio equipment only at one time from the
land. The period for compliance was
three months. This matter was subsequently the subject of an appeal which was
dismissed and the notice upheld by the Inspector, one of the issues being
inappropriate location within a residential area. The Inspector's decision letter was dated 7 April 2004.
I would also like to draw
to Members attention to previous approval granted in 1994 for a warehouse of
approximately 1100 square metres including office and welfare facilities for
site staff and lorry drivers together with parking for up to 40 articulated
vehicles and 27 cars. At the time of determining this application consideration
was given to the type of use involved, the employment implications and the
access requirements of the operator, close to main road serving ferry
connections to the mainland. In
addition, the haulage firm involved were, at that time, operating from a site
on Newport Quay, accessed over Sea Street and along the harbour area which was
considered to be less than ideal by reason of the size of vehicles
involved. These factors were
considered to be sufficient to justify approval in this location.
Agent refers to PPG4 -
Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms, which is relevant to
proposals by small firms and encourages Local Planning Authorities to be
positive and that Councils should not place undue obstacles in the way of
investment and jobs. In addition, agent
advises that there are budget restrictions in connection with the purchase or
lease of sites zoned for employment purposes and in consequence have approached
this authority in respect of relocating to Dodnor Industrial Park but were
advised this was not an acceptable location.
Notwithstanding the
desirability of avoiding disruption to a small business PPG18 - Enforcing
Planning Control, makes it clear that it is not the responsibility of the Local
Planning Authority to seek out and suggest alternative sites and I do not
consider the possible difficulty in finding a convenient alternative base for
the business justifies it to continue in the present inappropriate
location. However, PPG18 also provides
guidance on appropriate timescales for enforcing against unauthorised
development and advises that Local Planning Authorities should have regard for
the possible implications for the business and potential loss of employment as
a result of any action requiring the business to relocate. In this instance, having regard to the
retrospective nature of the application, should Members be minded to
refuse the application,
it would be necessary to initiate
enforcement proceedings requiring the cessation of the work and reinstatement
of the land to its former condition. In
determining the appropriate timescales for such action, it will be necessary to
have regard for the advice in the PPG.
As well as the siting of
a portakabin type office and two storage containers proposal also involves the
parking at the site of 4 Euro Taxis, 1 private hire car, 1 eight-seater coach,
2 sixteen-seater coaches, a 21 seater coach and a breakdown truck. The majority
of these will be parked overnight and during the day the cars which belong to
the employees will be parked at the site whilst they are at work. Agent has
provided the anticipated times of movement of vehicles and I do not feel this
aspect of the proposal presents any problems in this instance as there are no
nearby residential properties that will be affected.
Guidance contained within PPG1-
General Policies and Principles,
states:
Where development is
proposed on land adjoining urban areas, its impact on its surroundings and
nearby land uses should be considered carefully.
Furthermore, the guidance
contained within PPG7, Planning Policies for the Countryside, states that:
Development should
benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment.
Whilst I appreciate nearby residents
will not be affected, consideration needs to be given to both national and
local policy to protect the landscape beauty and character of the countryside.
I am of the opinion that proposal does not maintain the distinctiveness of the
area and presents an incongruous use on the individuality of the area,
especially when taking into account siting of associated structures, importing
of gravel, parking of vehicles and sensor operated security lights.
I do take note of the employment
issues raised and in that context would emphasise that the Council does promote
and encourage the development of new and existing employment uses providing
they are suitably located. Policy E8 of the Unitary Development Plan details
criteria which should be met by proposals for employment related developments
on land outside the development envelope boundaries. In accordance with the policy, proposals for employment in the
countryside will be expected to be of benefit to the rural economy, be of a
scale appropriate to the location and to satisfy at least one of the criteria
set out in the policy, including reuse of suitable buildings or development
associated with working farm complexes. Clearly this proposal is not reusing
existing buildings and the provision of new structures is in direct conflict
with policy.
Agent also refers to Policy C15
suggesting that current proposal represents diversification of farming
enterprise and that this particular site is within a farm which earns an income
from the leasing of this land. However, the policy is quite clear that
development in connection with the diversification of the business of an
existing farm or estate will be permitted as long as evidence is provided to
show that the proposed enterprise will be well integrated within the existing
operation. In the absence of a 'whole farm plan' the authority is unable to
fully identify the employment and economic benefits of the proposal. In this
instance, whilst the owner of the land may receive an income from leasing the
land, I do not consider the use involved represents an appropriate form of
diversification. In particular, there
is no direct relationship between the farm activities and the use involved and
is considered to be inappropriate in this location.
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 operate his business from the land, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Councils 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 use of the
site for the operation of a taxi business is an inappropriate development in
the countryside, does not maintain or protect the landscape and is detrimental
to the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area. In view of
the above the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan.
1. RECOMMENDATION
- REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The site lies outside
the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises of
undesirable and inappropriate use in the countryside, would be prejudicial to
the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Strategic Policies
S1 (New Development will be Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas), S4
(The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development) and
Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), G5 (Development
Outside Defined Settlements) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION
- Enforcement action is instigated requiring the cessation of the use of the
site as a taxi operating centre, the removal of the portakabin and storage
containers and reinstatement of land to its former or an agreed condition,
including the removal of the gravel parking area. Period for compliance - 6 months for cessation of use with a
further 3 months for removal of structures and reinstating the land.
|
9. |
TCP/21804/D P/02253/03 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ryde South West Registration Date: 17/11/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. P. Smith Tel: (01983) 823570 Applicant: Mr R Harris 12 columns supporting floodlights
serving courts 4, 5 & 6; a
moveable practice wall, (readvertised application) Ryde Lawn Tennis & Croquet
Club, Playstreet Lane, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333LJ |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Local Member, Councillor
I Stephens, as a member of Ryde Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, is an interested
party, and the application has attracted both representations in support and in
objection.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken 25 weeks to the date of
the committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week
period for determination of planning applications due to the need to obtain
further information from the applicant.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Ryde Lawn Tennis and
Croquet Club is located on the northern side of Playstreet Lane, Ryde. The site
is bordered by the playing fields of Ryde High School to the north and Haylands
Primary School to the west. The site directly adjoins several properties on
both Pellhurst Road and Playstreet Lane. The southern side of Playstreet Lane
is flanked by residential dwellings.
The site comprises 6 hard
surfaced tennis courts, 2 grassed tennis courts, croquet pitches, parking area
and a pavilion.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/21804/A
Construction of 3 macadam surfaced tennis courts with wire stop netting
Approved 1 July 1996.
TCP/21804/E
Construction of new footpath/disabled persons access paths, extend existing car
park area and provision of lighting Approved 31 March 2004.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Ryde Lawn Tennis and
Croquet Club is a long established recreational establishment, providing tennis
facilities and coaching opportunities to both junior and adult age groups.
This is a detailed
application for proposed floodlights to light courts 4-6 and a movable practice
wall. The floodlights comprise 12 x 8
metre tall columns, with a proposed time limit of 2300 hours. The movable practice wall is to be sited on
the western boundary of court 4, and comprises 6 adjoining panels, combining 6
metres in width, and will be "artificial grass" in appearance.
Courts 4-6 are the
furthest distances hard surfaced tennis courts from nearby residential
properties, at a distance of some 54 metres from the nearest residential
curtilage.
The applicant seeks to
gain approval to enable the Tennis Club to extend their current playing and
coaching times. Particular emphasis has
been given to the potential improvement of the provision of coaching of junior
members of the club, who are currently only able to use the courts at the
weekends during the winter months.
A recent poll carried out
by the Club showed that 100% of junior members and 80% of adult members were in
favour of installing a practice wall.
The provision of such would provide a facility whereby players could
practice without the need for a partner.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
G10 Potential Conflict
Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses
D1 Standards of Design
D14 Light Spillage
L2 Formal Recreation
Provision
PPG17 - Planning for Open
Space, Sport and Recreation.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Environmental Health
Officer has recommended the application for conditional approval. He advises
that he has received a report from an acoustics consultant which reports that
the resultant sound levels resulting from a ball hitting the wall were slightly
higher than those resulting from a ball hitting a racquet or chain-link
fence. As the increase in noise is
insignificant his initial requirement for a noise assessment report and need
for restrictive condition is no longer needed.
The Isle of Wight Council Lighting Services have commented that the
lanterns are acceptable providing light spillage is kept to a minimum.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
7 letters of objection
received from residents raising issues that can be summarised as follows;
·
Proposed floodlights will be visually unacceptable and intrusive
·
Floodlights will illuminate neighbouring gardens and properties/light
pollution
·
Noise created by practice board
·
Increased traffic late at night in Playstreet Lane
·
Exacerbated parking problems in Playstreet Lane leading to increased
traffic accidents
·
Proposed hours of illumination are excessive
·
Combined impact of proposed floodlights with those of Ryde High School
·
Increased noise late at night
·
Interference with TV transmission
1 letter raises no
objection, but recommends a condition restricting the use of the practice wall
to courts 4-6.
3 letters of support were
received, two of them being from the Headteachers of Ryde High School and Haylands
Primary School.
A petition has been
received in support of the application comprising 88 club member signatures.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in
considering this application are whether the provision of flood lighting and a
practice wall would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the
area, and whether they will cause an unacceptable disturbance to local
residents in respect of light and noise nuisance.
Proposal before Members
seeks consent for twelve 8 metre high floodlights to light 3 hard surfaced
tennis courts, and a movable practice wall. The floodlights are evenly spaced
on the perimeter of the 3 courts in question, with one located between courts 3
and 4, and 4 and 5.
Submitted documentation
has addressed both the concerns of noise produced from the use of the practice
wall, and the light spillage resulting from the floodlights.
The results of the noise
assessment have established that the sound intensity levels resulting from a
tennis ball hitting a practice wall are only slightly higher than those
resulting from a tennis ball hitting a racquet or a chain link fence. The
opinion of the Environmental Health Department is that this increase is
insignificant.
Extensive documentation
addresses the problems of light pollution with a system being designed to
reduce overspill, glare and sky glow by ensuring installation of a lighting system,
which can effectively direct the flow of light. The documentation is technical
in nature, but indicates that necessary steps have been taken to ensure minimal
disturbance to the neighbouring area in respect of light pollution.
Lighting units chosen will
produce three times less spillover than other asymmetric floodlights and ten
times less than conventional floodlights.
Lighting of individual courts will achieve average lux levels of between
490 and 555 dependent on location of floodlight units, whilst overspill
calculations indicate no direct impacts at distances in excess of approximately
30 metres.
The application has
sought to gain approval for the use of the floodlighting until 2300 hours,
however taking into account the proximity of the proposed to residential
dwellings, and residential nature of the area, a 2130 shut-off time seems
justifiable and consistent. This not
only addresses the concerns over late night light pollution, but also satisfies
concerns over the increased noise late at night.
It is considered that it
would be unreasonable to presume the proposed floodlights and practice wall
will exacerbate the traffic and parking problems in Playstreet Lane. The proposal will provide an extension of the
club's operating hours, rather than an intensification of the usage of the
courts.
With regards to the
concerns raised that the installation of the floodlights would adversely affect
the TV signals of local residents, it is understood from previous planning
applications, that the Radio Communications Agency who are responsible for
dealing with disputes are unable to predict whether development such as this
would cause interference and would not normally become involved with planning
applications of this type. However, if
interference did occur, they would investigate the matter and take appropriate
action.
Ryde High School was
granted planning permission for the construction of a floodlit all weather
pitch on 5 August 2002. The siting of
this is North of the proposed floodlit courts that this applications refers
to. The permission is subject to
conditions ensuring the adequate provision against light spillage, pollution
and glare into the surrounding area, an hours restriction until 2130 and a limit
to the level of illumination applied to the construction of 8 x 16 metre high
floodlighting columns. At present, the
floodlights have not been erected, and the school are currently looking into
the possibility of reducing the size of the approved scheme.
The urban nature of the
surrounding area diminishes the concerns over the visual prominence of the
proposed floodlights. The addition of twelve 8 metre high floodlights is
acceptable in this location, falling within the development envelope of Ryde.
I am of the opinion that
the proposed floodlights and practice wall with appropriate conditions will not
have an unduly detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the area, and will
not cause significant disturbance to local residents or have sufficient impacts
to warrant a refusal of consent. The
proposal is seen as achieving the right balance between improving sports
facilities for the local community without widely impacting on the amenities of
nearby residents, complying with the intentions contained within PPG17.
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 balanced with the right of the applicant to
develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact
upon the area, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and
character of the locality. The proposal is considered to satisfy policies D1
(Standards of design), G10 (Potential Conflict), D14 (Light Spillage) and L2
(Formal Recreation Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The floodlight columns
hereby approved shall not exceed a height of 8 metres above ground level, and
the height of the columns shall not be varied in any way without the prior
written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan |
|
3 |
The floodlights hereby
approved shall only be operated in connection with the use of the hard
surfaced tennis courts for sports activities and for no other purposes
without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities of adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D14
(Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan |
|
4 |
The floodlights hereby
approved shall not be illuminated after 2130 hours or when the hard surfaced
tennis courts are not in use. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan |
|
5 |
The lighting units
installed shall be as specified in the application and shall not be altered
or amended in any way without the written prior consent of the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10. |
TCP/25625/A P/00104/04 Parish/Name: Northwood
Ward: Northwood Registration Date: 27/02/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Mr & Mrs T Gant Demolition of garage &
conservatory; replacement
conservatory; 2 storey side extension
to form replacement garage with 2 bedrooms over; 2 storey rear extension to provide additional living
accommodation, (revised scheme) 36 Coronation Avenue, Cowes, Isle
Of Wight, PO318PN |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member,
Cllr R G Mazillius, as he is not prepared to agree to the application being
dealt with under the delegated procedure as he considers that extension would
have an unreasonably adverse impact detracting from the amenity and enjoyment
of the neighbouring property.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the
processing of which has taken 10 weeks and 4 days to the date of the Committee
meeting. The application has gone
beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application
due to the request by local Member for consideration by Committee.
LOCATION SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Coronation Avenue is located off
Newport Road, Northwood close to the junction with Nodes Road. The application site is situated on the
north side of the Avenue to the lower half of the road. The site consists of a two storey detached
property with a large domestic garden to the rear stretching approximately 55
metres in length. The dwelling to the
west of the property is a bungalow, while other properties on the same side of
the road are two storey. To the east of
the site are two new houses within an infill plot, the second of these new
houses is in close proximity to its boundary with a bungalow neighbouring the
site. Land to the rear of the
application site consists of open countryside.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/25625 - an application was
refused in September 2003 for a two storey side and rear extension to form
replacement garage and provision for additional living accommodation. The reason for refusal was two-fold. Firstly, the proposed two storey side
extension was thought by reason of its size and proximity to the boundary to
have an overbearing effect on the occupants of the adjoining bungalow as well
as appearing cramped in the street scene.
In consequence, this would have been contrary to policies D1 Standards
of Design and H7 Extensions and Alterations to Existing Properties of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Secondly, the application was seen as deficient in detail to demonstrate
that the proposed first floor accommodation would satisfy a short-term need and
subsequently capable of being incorporated into the main house as additional
living accommodation. It was seen that
the application would be tantamount to the creation of a separate dwelling
which would be unacceptable. Once again
development would be contrary to policy D1 Standards of Design and H7 Extension
and Alterations to Existing Properties of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought for the demolition
of the garage and conservatory with replacement conservatory and development of
a two storey side extension to form replacement garage with two bedrooms over
and a two storey rear extension to provide additional living
accommodation. This is a revised scheme
in which the applicant has sought to overcome the initial reasons for refusal
of a previous application on the site.
The extension has been moved one metre off the side boundary, with the
additional living accommodation incorporated into the main house not forming
annexed accommodation.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies of the Unitary
Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
S6 - Development will be expected to
be of a high standard of design
G4 - General Locational Criteria for
Development
D1 - Standards of Design
H7 - Extensions and Alterations to
Existing Properties
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
None.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
One letter received objecting on
grounds which can be summarised as follows:
Not significantly
different from original application.
Loss of secondary light
and air to lounge/diner.
Overbearing/overshadowing.
Cramped in street scene.
Loss of several trees and
hedges on the boundary of application site would provide a more pleasurable
outlook, resulting in featureless solid brick wall.
One letter received supporting the
application and confirming no objection.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering
the application are whether or not the extension has been moved significantly
off the side boundary of the site or would still be an intrusive addition
having an overbearing impact on the occupants of the adjoining bungalow and
adding to a cramped appearance within the street scene.
The proposal follows the refusal of
a previous application for a similar development on the grounds of the
proximity of the two storey extension to the boundary with the neighbouring
bungalow and insufficient information in respect of the additional annex
accommodation and its capability of being incorporated into the main house and
not sub-leased. These issues have been
overcome in this re-submission with detailed floor plans and the omission of a
second kitchen/diner and staircase incorporating the extension into the scheme
and solely providing additional living accommodation and not annexed. The extension has been moved a metre off the
boundary with the neighbouring bungalow in order to reduce any dominance of the
two storey element.
Objections have been raised by the
residents of the neighbouring bungalow in regards to the over-dominance of the
extension and over-development of the site.
The extension would be facing two side windows of the bungalow and the
objector has raised concerns over the loss of natural light to these windows
from the extension. However, these are
secondary windows with adequate light provided from the principal window. In respect to the over-development of the site,
the garden stretches a distance of approximately 55 metres and as such the site
is seen as an adequate size for the scale of the development.
Additional concerns were raised over
the featureless solid brick wall, which would as a result of the application
face the west elevation of the neighbouring bungalow. The design of this elevation is such in order not to create any
overlooking issues to the windows in the side elevation of the bungalow.
The proposed development must be
examined in relation to the street scene and other developments in Coronation
Avenue, in order to determine whether the extension appears cramped within the
street scene and overbearing. The
development of two detached properties was approved in October 2002, this
development follows the relatively close-knit development in the area with the
second of the houses being in very close proximity to the bungalow on the
neighbouring plot. This relationship
between dwellings is closer than that of the application site. The design of the
extension sits comfortably within the street scene because it sits back from
the front of the property to minimise any potential visual impact.
The removal of the existing
conservatory and its replacement with a larger structure would not have a detrimental
impact on the surrounding properties with sufficient natural growth to
boundaries obscuring any overlooking and the length of the garden being
adequate to accommodate the additional depth.
I am of the opinion that the reasons
for refusal of the original application for this site have been overcome and,
as such, the extension is an acceptable addition to the property.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered
that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I
am satisfied that the extension has overcome the original reasons for refusal
and represents an acceptable form of development and as such would comply with
Policy S6 (Development will be expected to be of a high standard of design), D1
(Standards of Design) and H7 (Extensions and Alterations to Existing
Properties) of the Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Matching materials -
S01 |
|
3 |
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. |
|
4 |
Withdrawn PD right for
windows/dormers - R03 |
|
11. |
TCP/25897/A P/00213/04 Parish/Name: Totland
Ward: Totland Registration Date: 30/01/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Satherley Alterations & provision of new
roof to provide accommodation at 1st floor level; provision of 2 dormers in
front elevation; porch (revised scheme) (readvertised application) 1 Jameson Gardens, Totland Bay,
Isle Of Wight, PO390AA |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The local Member, Councillor Mr J
Howe, is unable to deal with this application under delegated procedure as he
has an association with the applicant.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the
processing of which has taken 15 weeks to date and has gone beyond the
prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to
negotiations in respect of the design of the proposal and the need for
Committee consideration.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Property is a detached bungalow set
within plot at the entrance of a cul-de-sac comprising of primarily detached
bungalows. Two storey properties front
onto Colwell Lane on either side of Jameson Gardens. Previous approval was granted in 1989 on land adjacent Heath
Cottage, which fronts onto Jameson Gardens for a chalet style bungalow
approximately 1 metre higher than that of adjoining semi-detached bungalow to
the south and including dormer windows in both front and rear elevation.
Property sits within an irregular shaped plot, which adjoins Colwell Lane and
then extends in width along Jameson Gardens.
Forward of this property is an open plan style garden area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/25897 - Alterations and
provision of new roof to provide accommodation at first floor level; porch -
Refused November 2003. Reasons for
refusal related to design of roof which would be an intrusive addition and, by
reason of its position, size, design and external appearance, would be out of
scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought to increase height
of the existing roof by approximately 1.2 metres, incorporating 2 dormer
windows and 1 roof light in front plane of roof and 3 roof lights within the
rear plane. Proposed first floor
accommodation will comprise of two bedrooms with landing. Application also includes a porch on west
(front) elevation having a width of 2.8m, a depth of 900mm and height of 2.7m
with a small area of flat roof.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is located within development
boundary of the Unitary Development Plan.
Relevant policies of the plan are
considered to be as follows:
S1 - New development will
be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S6 - All development will
be expected to be of high standard of design.
G4 - General Locational
Criteria for Development.
D1 - Standards of Design
H7 - Extension and
Alterations of Existing Properties.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
There were considered to be no
highway implications associated with this proposal.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Totland Parish Council are opposed
to the proposal as it would be an intrusive addition.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Three letters received from local
residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as
follows:
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in considering
application are whether the proposal is of appropriate size, scale and design
or would detract from the amenities of the area and neighbouring properties.
Previous reason for refusal was on
design of the roof, which would be an intrusive addition and out of scale and
character with the existing and surrounding dwellings. After negotiations new roof proposal has
been reduced in height from 4.65 metres to 3.90 metres, a reduction of some 750
mm, which I am satisfied reduces the overall impact. The previous scheme also included provision of 3 dormer windows
in the rear plane of the roof. These
have been omitted from the current proposal and have been replaced with three
Velux roof lights, resulting in a less oppressive design. Front elevation comprises of two dormer
windows which will reflect the character of a chalet bungalow north-west of
proposal, on opposite side of Jameson Gardens.
Notwithstanding comments from Parish
Council and residents that proposal will result in an intrusive addition, I am
of the opinion that property is set within a stand-alone plot on the corner
area of Jameson Gardens and Colwell Lane.
Taking this into consideration and having regard to the presence of
similar style property opposite site, I am satisfied the proposal is of
appropriate scale, mass and design. Furthermore, I do not consider that
proposal will have excessive or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties,
either by reason of over dominance or overlooking and loss of privacy.
Concerns were also raised on the
suitability of the existing foundations, which is not a justifiable reason for
refusal of this application and will be dealt with accordingly under Building
Control 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 impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Isle of Wight 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 is of an appropriate scale, mass and design and
in keeping with the host property, and would not detract from the character and
the amenities of the locality.
Furthermore I am satisfied that the proposals will not have excessive or
unacceptable impact on neighbouring property, and in view of the above I do not
consider that proposal conflicts with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan, particularly S6, G4, D1 and H7.
RECOMMENDATION - Approval
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Construction of the
alterations to the property 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. |
|
12. |
TCP/25943/A P/00573/04 Parish/Name: Totland
Ward: Totland Registration Date: 15/03/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant: Gardner Business Consultancy Services Siting of mobile catering
unit/kiosk land at, The Promenade, Totland
Bay, PO39 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
This application is
regarded as being contentious having attracted a large number of
representations.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application the processing of which has taken 8 weeks and 1 day to date. The
processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for
determination of planning applications because of the need for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Proposal is sited on
Totland Promenade north west of Madeira Road. The area in general is a concrete
promenade providing vehicular and pedestrian access to dwellings, business
premises and parking facilities. North of the proposal is an existing beach
cafι and to the south is a public convenience. Proposal is intended to sit
within a parking bay area and will occupy three car parking spaces. Totland
beach is west of the promenade at a slightly lower level and is divided by a
simple design black iron railing. Proposal is outside the development envelope
and is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/25943 Siting of
mobile catering unit/kiosk, land at The Promenade, Totland Bay Withdrawn in
order to facilitate further discussions in respect of proposal.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought to site
a mobile catering unit measuring 6 metres in length by 2.5 metres in width.
Kiosk is a traditional catering trailer style and includes the addition of
showman style opening with recessed customer shelf and one additional end hatch.
It is the applicants wish to site this catering unit on a temporary basis from
1 April to 31 October in each year.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies of the
plan are considered to be as follows:
S4 The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate
Development
S6 All Development will be Expected to be of a High
Standard of Design
G4 General Locational Criteria for Development
G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements
C1 Protection of Landscape Character
C2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
P1 Pollution and Development
TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
initially made no comment but subsequently advised that they had been contacted
by the Local Member (Councillor Howe) expressing concern that children queuing
at the kiosk would be in danger from vehicles negotiating the sharp left turn
manoeuvre at the bottom of the slope, to drive in a southerly direction along
The Promenade. They commented that even though the kiosk would not protrude out
into the traffic flow as much as the cars often parked there, there is a
possibility that a carelessly driven vehicle could potentially collide with an unsupervised
child and for this reason it may be proven to reconsider the kiosks location.
Environmental Health
commented that the proposal was small enough and far enough away from
residential uses and will not result in loss of amenity from noise or odour.
AONB has no adverse
comments.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Totland Parish Council
object on the following grounds:
·
The proposed kiosk obstructs three parking places and will lead to
further congestion;
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
15 letters of objection
were received (12 were duplicate letters) and petition containing 489
signatures from local residents and visitors to the Island, in some cases 2
letters/signatures have been received from the same household, objecting to
application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:
·
Siting of kiosk would add to an existing parking problem in the summer
months;
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining factors in
considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle,
whether the kiosk is of appropriate size, scale and design, in keeping with the
surrounding area, particularly having regard to location of site within the designated
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and whether its siting as proposed would
create a hazard to users of The Promenade.
Although site is outside
the development boundary, proposal falls within category of development which
may exceptionally be permitted outside defined settlements and is therefore
considered to be acceptable in principle.
Siting of the kiosk on
Totland Promenade will be temporary starting 1 April and ending 31 October in
any rolling year. Agent has confirmed that it is the applicant intends to use
the kiosk for sale of confectionary, ice cream and drinks. Concerns were raised
on potential noise pollution by installing a generator and whilst this is an
Environmental Health issue agent has advised that it is their intention to connect
the kiosk to a main power system, eliminating any noise.
Regarding the subject of
highway safety implications, I am of the opinion that due to the steepness of
Madeira Road it will restrict drivers from driving at excessive speed and the
curvature of the road would also reduce this. After liaising with the Highways
department they accept that the kiosk would not protrude out into the traffic
flow, therefore proposal will not add unduly add to the hazards of the highway
users. An objection has been received on grounds that kiosk could potentially
cause an obstruction to emergency vehicles.
However, the Highways Engineer does not share these concerns, as the
mobile catering unit would cause less obstruction on The Promenade than the
four vehicles that are often parked there.
Whilst the siting of the
kiosk could result in the loss of three parking spaces, given that the area is
privately owned, I do not consider that this could provide a justification to
withhold consent. In any event, it is considered that there are adequate
parking facilities along The Promenade and on the nearby public highway.
Concerns were raised that
unsupervised children would be at risk from vehicles using The Promenade at
this point. However, with the facilities already available along The Promenade
I believe that the proposal would not add any greater risk. Proposal will
incorporate a removable protection barrier to persuade visitors of the kiosk to
uniformly queue in front of the facility, confining them to a certain area.
Any potential hygiene
problems will be addressed by the Environmental Health department should the
need arise and after consulting with the department, they raise no objection to
the proposal. With regard to issue of disposal of waste water, specification of
the catering unit includes an internal waterplant which will need to be removed
and manually disposed of into a drain.
I am of the opinion catering equipment required would be minimal and
would not cause an excessive amount of waste water. Matters relating to
disposal of litter and commercial waste can be addressed by conditions, should
Members be minded to approve this application.
The design of the
proposed kiosk is of a mock Victorian style and although it has been suggested
that this would be out of character with the predominant development in the
area, it is of a style sympathetic in nature to the seaside location. No
adverse comments have been received from AONB Officer and I am satisfied that
proposal will not have detrimental effect on the landscape character of the
area.
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 balanced with the right 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 Isle of Wight 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 would not have excessive or
unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not
detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. Furthermore, I
do not consider that refusal of application on grounds that kiosk would create
highway hazard would be justified. In
view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan, particularly S4, S6, G4, C1, C2, P1, TR7.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
This permission
authorises the siting of the mobile catering unit/kiosk only during the
period form 1 April to the 31 October in each year unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for
permanent stationing of the kiosk is not acceptable and in the interests of
general amenity and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Colour treatment to be agreed -
S22 |
|
4 |
The kiosk hereby
approved shall be used for the sale of confectionery, ice cream and
refreshments and for no other purpose,
including any other purpose in Class A3 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
with or without modification. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area in general and nearby residential occupiers and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The kiosk hereby
permitted shall not open to customers other than between the hours of 0830
and 1900 hours daily. 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
6 |
A refuse receptacle
shall be provided outside the premises to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority and retained there during opening hours. 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
7 |
The development hereby
permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be
made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of the
use hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be
brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has
been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and
such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO
CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
|
(a) |
TCP/7917/E |
Unauthorised change to shop front,
at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor which is detrimental to the visual amenities of
the area. |
|
|
Officer: P. Barker |
Tel: (01983) 823573 |
To consider the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of ply wood shuttering from the front of the shop situated at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor and the replacement of the plate glass window.
In December 2003 a report was received in the Planning department to the effect that one of the large plate glass windows in the front elevation of the shop at 9-13 Pier Street, Ventnor had been missing for some time and had been replaced with ply wood shuttering. It was alleged that this shuttering at the front of the property was detrimental to the visual amenities within the Ventnor Conservation Area.
The Enforcement Officer visited Pier Street and photographed the front of the building and then wrote to the property owner pointing the effect on the Conservation Area.
The owner failed to respond to the
letter and he was eventually contacted by the Enforcement Officer in February
2004. He said that the plate glass window broke when workman tried to remove it
to gain access to the shop with heavy equipment needed to carry out urgent
repair work to stabilise the premises. He went on to say that he has contacted
a number of companies with a view to replacing the window but that work entails
removing the window next to it to fit in a supporting cill beneath them, and
none of the companies who had inspected the property had supplied him with a
quote. The Enforcement Officer advised the owner to expedite this matter.
On the 26 March 2004 the Enforcement
Officer visited the premises and found that the window has still not been
replaced.
There are no financial implications.
1. To note the contents of the report and accept that the replacement of the plate glass adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining area and as a consequence to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the property owner to remove the ply wood shuttering from the window and replace it with plate glass. Time for compliance 2 months.
2. To take no further action in
respect of the ply wood shuttering.
Many people and local businesses have made a great deal of effort in order to make Ventnor a more attractive town. There are a number of sites in Ventnor where the same degree of effort has not been made and I believe that it is entirely appropriate to serve Notices under Section 215 of the T own and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove these eyesores.
Human Rights
In coming to this conclusion, 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. Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to take action under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the landowner, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedom of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the landowner the proposed action is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedom of others.
To note the contents of the report and accept that the replacement of the plate glass adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining area and as a consequence to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the property owner to remove the ply wood shuttering from the window and replace it with plate glass.
Time for compliance 2 months.
(b) TCP/09272/H |
Siting of a
mobile home, used as a separate living unit, at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven
Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor, Isle of Wight |
|
Officer: P Barker |
Tel: (01983) 823573 |
To consider the service of an
Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised mobile home from
the land at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff.
Victoria Lodge is a building of
prefabricated construction which suffered subsidence problems some years ago
and is uninhabitable. The current owner
purchased the derelict building and land in May 2003.
In December 2003 a report was
received in the Planning Department to the effect that a mobile home had been
sited on land within the curtilage of Victoria Lodge and was being used as a
separate living unit. An Enforcement
Officer visited the land and found that the current owner was indeed living on
site in a mobile home. He stated that
he wished to live in the mobile home on a temporary basis during times that he
was in the country, and once the effect of the Council drainage works and
coastal defence scheme were known he would be applying to convert an existing
unoccupied coach house on site to a temporary dwelling as a one-for-one
replacement for Victoria Lodge.
The landowner stated that he had
been homeless for 8 years and spent much of his time on the road living in vans
and wintering abroad in warmer climes.
In an effort to abandon his nomadic lifestyle and put down roots, he had
made a planning application for the retention of the mobile home as a temporary
living unit. The application was
subsequently refused under delegated powers.
There are no financial implications.
1. To serve an Enforcement
Notice requiring the cessation of use of the mobile home as a separate living
unit and removal of the mobile home from the land.
Time for compliance six
months from when the Notice takes effect.
2. To take no further action
regarding the siting of the mobile home.
This is not a case where a
landowners house fell down around him thereby forcing him to reside in
temporary accommodation. The current
landowner purchased the derelict house and land at a knock-down price (knowing fully
that the house was uninhabitable) and moved the mobile home on site without
first obtaining planning permission.
The Case Officer recommended refusal
of the application because the site is outside the defined settlement
boundaries within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Heritage Coast,
and was detrimental to the visual amenity and character of the area and
therefore contrary to Policies S1 (concentrated within existing urban areas),
S6 (to be of a high standard of design), and Policy H12 (mobile homes and
residential caravans), C1 (protection of landscape and character) and C4
(Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Additionally, the Coastal Manager
has stated that the area around Victoria Lodge is at high risk from ground
instability, evidenced by the destruction of Victoria Lodge. Government Policy
is aimed at reducing risks to people and property by restricting development in
areas at risk from erosion and landslip.
He also said that the current
coastal protection works do not guarantee ground stability in this location
which is close to a landslip scarp face; indeed some ongoing movement can be
expected in this vicinity, for as part of the planning consent we are not
re-grading land at this location for environmental reasons.
It was the Coastal Managers opinion
that this development would be inappropriate in an area at high risk, and
despite the measures proposed by the applicant there would still be an increase
in artificially induced ground water.
For the above reasons I think it is
appropriate to serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the mobile
home.
In coming to this conclusion,
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. Whilst it is accepted that the
recommendation to take enforcement action may interfere with the rights and
freedoms of the landowner, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedom
of others. Insofar as there is an
interference with the rights of the landowner the proposed action is considered
necessary for the protection of rights and freedom of others. The policy objections stated in respect of
the continuing use of the property are those encompassed in the Councils
Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the proposed use could
be allowed to continue even with the imposition of conditions. It is also considered that the enforcement
action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of use of the mobile home as a separate living unit and removal of the mobile home from the land.
Time
for compliance six months from when the Notice takes effect.
(c) |
TCPE/13798/B |
Buildings at 52-58 High Street,
Ventnor which are falling into serious disrepair thereby adversely affecting
the visual amenities of the area |
|
|
Officer: P. Barker |
Tel: (01983) 823573 |
To consider the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the buildings at 52-58 High Street, Ventnor to be externally repaired and redecorated.
The buildings at 52-58 High Street,
Ventnor have, for many years, been used to retail second-hand books and
bric-a-brac. It is quite apparent that
no money has been spent to keep the exterior of the premises in a good state of
repair or to redecorate them. Further,
in February 2004 a complaint was received in the Planning Department to the
effect that the buildings have a serious detrimental effect on the visual
amenities of the area. On 13 February
2004 the Enforcement Officer visited High Street, Ventnor and took a number of
photographs of the fronts of the properties.
On 18 February 2004 the Enforcement
Officer wrote to the owner of the properties notifying him of the complaint,
and asking the owner to contact him to discuss carrying out remedial works to
the buildings. The owner of the properties
has chosen to completely disregard the letter.
The Enforcement Officer visited the
premises again on 13 April 2004 and found a handwritten notice inside one of
the windows stating that the property was sold and that all the merchandise had
to go. Further photographs were taken,
including photographs of the rear of the properties. A Land Registry search has confirmed that there is a contractual
purchaser, but it appears that contracts have not yet been exchanged.
There are no financial implications.
Time for compliance 3
months after the Notice takes effect.
The fabric of this building is in such poor condition that it will rapidly deteriorate further if no remedial action is taken. It could be some considerable time before contracts are exchanged on this property and these buildings are an eyesore in a town which relies heavily on tourism, and for this reason I believe that consent should be put in place for the service of a Section 215 Notice either on the existing, or new owner if prompt action is not taken to address this problem by repairing and redecorating the buildings, or redeveloping the site. An additional factor is that these buildings are situated in the Ventnor Conservation Area.
Human Rights
In coming to this conclusion,
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. Whilst it is accepted
that the recommendation to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town &
Country Planning Act 1990 may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the
landowner, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.
Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the landowner the
proposed action is considered necessary for the protection of rights and
freedoms of others. It is considered
that the proposed action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the
public interest.
To serve a Section 215 Notice requiring
that the timber cladding on part of the front of the building be repaired,
replaced or removed and the fabric of the building made good. Repair and repaint whole frontage of the
buildings. Carry out repairs to the rear elevation by replacing damaged
rainwater guttering and downpipes, replacing collapsed stonework on the first
floor elevation, and removing weed infestation on the rear of the
building. Repair and repaint woodwork
on the front and rear elevation of the buildings including windows.
|
(d) |
TCP/15171/G |
Unauthorised work to convert
building into private dwelling, Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane, Merstone |
|
|
Officer: L Harper |
Tel: (01983) 823569 |
Summary
To consider whether, following the
refusal of planning permission, the circumstances justify the service of an
Enforcement Notice requiring partial demolition, the removal of the external
stonewalls, roof and the internal works and reinstating the building to
its original condition.
In October 2003 a complaint was
received by the Enforcement Section regarding the alleged conversion of a
three-storey farm building into a residence at Cheeks Farm, Merstone Lane,
Merstone. Cheeks Farm is located outside of the village on the eastern side of
the lane. The Farm is derelict and apart from the converted mill building
comprises a number of ruined animal pens and two dilapidated barn buildings
used for miscellaneous storage.
The Area Enforcement Officer visited
Cheeks Farm and was informed by the Owner that the building, a disused mill had
previously incorporated an element of residential accommodation and was being
repaired. The owner was informed that based on an initial assessment of the
nature of the works being undertaken at the time of the site visit it went
beyond what would be considered the repair of a building but was rather the
extensive rebuilding and conversion of a farm building to residential use.
A second more detailed site visit was
undertaken with the Enforcement Team Leader to establish the precise nature of
the development being undertaken. The converted building comprises three
storeys with a single storey element on the eastern end. The single storey
element is 5.3 metres in length width by 7.6 metres in width. The main three
storey building is 7.6 metres in width by 11.9 metres in length. The external
works comprised the construction of outer walls on all elevations of the
building and the replacement of the entire roof. The internal works comprised
the removal of the mill machinery and the reconfiguration of the layout to form
on the ground floor a kitchen, dining room and sitting room, with a staircase
to connect the second and third floors each containing two bedrooms and bathrooms. All floors and dividing walls were new. It did appear that the internal block wall
was largely original. The single storey
element was all new construction.
During a subsequent meeting with the
Owner at the Planning Offices he was informed of the concerns of the Local
Planning Authority and the procedural steps that could be taken to rectify the
breach of planning control. The Owner stated that he intended to submit a
retrospective planning application to retain the building. He was advised that
a retrospective planning application to retain the existing building for
permanent residential use would not receive Officer support. Rather, he should
examine the feasibility of any development proposal within the context of
policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan.
In the north-east corner of the farm
are a number of disused animal pens approximately 5.9 metres in width by 15.5
metres in length. The walls of the pens had been raised with the intention of
creating what appears to be a number of stable units.
The planning history dates from the
early 1970s and reveals a refusal of planning permission for residential
development on the site. At the time the description of the site was as a
piggery. The reason for refusal was
that the proposal was contrary to the provisions of the County Development Plan
where most of the land is shown as white land the use of which shall remain for
most part undisturbed. Furthermore that it would result in the extension of
ribbon development along Merstone Lane and be prejudicial to the amenities and
character. A subsequent application for an agricultural workers farmhouse was
refused in 1974. Applications for light
industrial development were refused in 1992 and 1993. In 1995, a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) was granted for
the use of the front part of the site only for storage and wholesale
distribution of fruit and vegetables.
The building the subject of this report lies outside the area covered by
the LDC.
A planning application was submitted
in December 2003 but was invalidated. A subsequent application was submitted in
January 2004 for the continued use of house/mill as private dwelling and was
subsequently refused in March 2004. The reason for refusal of planning
permission was because the proposal was contrary to policies C17 (a) Conversion
of Barns and Other Rural Buildings), G5 (Development Outside Defined
Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of
the Unitary Development Plan and insufficient information was submitted to show
every reasonable attempt made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or
tourism use of the building.
The following Unitary Development
Plan Policies apply
S1: New Development will be
concentrated within existing urban areas
S2 Development will be encouraged on
land which has previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped
(greenfield sites)
S4 The countryside will be protected
from inappropriate development
S5 All development will be expected
to be of a high standard of design
Detailed Policies
G1 (Development envelopes)
G2 (Consolidation outside
development envelopes)
G4 (General locational criteria)
G5 (Development outside defined
settlements)
D1 (Standards of design)
D2 (Standards for development
within the site)
H9 (Outside development
boundaries)
E8 (Employment in the countryside)
C15 (Appropriate Agricultural Diversification)
C16 (New Dwellings Supporting
Agriculture and Forestry)
C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other
Rural Dwellings)
C18 (Agricultural Support
Activities)
TR7 (Highway Considerations for
New Development)
Financial Implications
None
Options
1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring
(a) the demolition of the single storey element;
(b) the removal of the external stone walls on all elevations of the
building;
(c) the removal of the roof (including all rafters);
(d) the removal of the internal dividing walls, the floors and the
ceilings.
All materials removed from
the site.
Time period for compliance 4 months.
2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the
internal block wall to all elevations of the building and the removal of all
resultant materials from the site.
Time
period for compliance 4 months.
3. To
service an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the additional
elements built on to the walls of the former pigsty buildings at the rear
of the site and the removal of all resultant material from the site.
Time period for compliance
4 months.
4. To note the report and take
no further action.
Conclusion.
None of the planning history
relating to this site gives any indication that the building in question held
any element of residential accommodation which could be relied upon to justify
in part the current conversion works.
The conversion of the former
agricultural building to a substantial detached three storey structure intended
for permanent residential use represents a marked departure from and would
conflict with a number of policies within the Unitary Development Plan. In the
first instance, the site is located outside the defined settlement of Merstone
where new residential development must be justified. In that context, the Owner has failed to demonstrate any
justification as to why an exception to policy should be made. Secondly, the
scale of the alterations to the building are such that the proposal cannot be
considered under the Conversions Policy (C17) which would allow alternative
uses to residential to be considered as part of a scheme to reuse and adapt a
rural building.
It is for these significant policy
reasons that I am of the opinion based on the available information that no
planning conditions that the Local Planning Authority could impose would
overcome or address the major departure from policy which the retention of the
building would represent.
In terms of remedying the breach, I
consider that the developer should be required to remove all the additions and
alterations to the building.
Whilst this may leave him with just
a shell, members should not at this stage allow the retention of any new
element as I consider this would send the totally wrong message to anyone with
a similar proposal in mind.
It has been suggested that it will
not be possible to maintain the inner block skin as the other elements of the
building are removed or once it is left as a shell. Accordingly it is proposed to include its removal as a separate
part of the Notice in the event that, should an appeal be made, then an
Inspector can vary certain elements within the Notice without quashing it in
total.
Regarding the alterations to the
outbuildings, I also consider these should be the subject of enforcement action
as I would not want to encourage the formation of any new building in this
location in the absence of a sound justification.
The Planning Agent acting on behalf
of the Owner has indicated in letter of 22 April 2004, that Owner has
instructed him to submit planning application for conversion and use of the
building for holiday use. Given the
magnitude of the works to the building I do not believe any application of this
nature will conform to policy.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to
this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice, consideration has been given
to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the
first Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the continued unauthorised building
within the immediate locality has been carefully considered. The action
recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council to remedy
the breach of planning control and is made in the public interest which is
expressed through the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.
1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring
(e) the demolition of the single storey element;
(f) the removal of the external stone walls on all elevations of the building;
(g) the removal of the roof (including all rafters);
(h) the removal of the internal dividing walls, the floors and the ceilings;
(i) with all materials removed from the site.
Time period for compliance 4 months.
2. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the internal block wall to all elevations of the building and the removal of all resultant materials from the site.
Time period for compliance 4 months.
3. To service an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the additional elements built on to the walls of the former pigsty buildings at the rear of the site and the removal of all resultant material from the site.
Time period for compliance 4 months.
|
(e) |
E/15645/B |
Investigation into whether
building and surrounding land in connection with vehicle repairs and storage
represents a material change of use.
Vectra Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens |
|
|
Officer: L Harper |
Tel: (01983) 823569 |
Summary
To consider whether the use of
a building and adjoining land together with the sides of the access road in
connection with vehicles repairs and storage represents a material change of
use and if so whether some form of enforcement action should be authorised
requiring the cessation of the use and the removal of the vehicles concerned.
Background
Several complaints were received by
the Enforcement Section relating to the storage, scrapping and repair of motor
vehicles at the former Vectra Engineering Building, Carpenters Lane, St Helens.
This building is located at the southern end of a range of buildings running on
the eastern side of Carpenters Lane which is an unmade track running south from
its junction with the main St Helens Road B3330. The lane is a public footpath providing access to the former
railway line. The investigation was
subsequently expanded to consider the use of the buildings to the north of the
Vectra Engineering Building.
The range of buildings has a
substantial planning history in connection with the operation of the former St
Helens Laundry. Records indicate that
planning permission was granted in 1968 to Vectra Engineering for a workshop
for car servicing and repairs within the building that was the subject of the
first complaint. An Enforcement Officer
visited the site and observed that the building was being used in connection
with vehicle repairs with the adjoining compound to the building full of
vehicles with other associated motor vehicles parked along either side of the
lane. As Members will be aware, the
laundry has ceased to operate from this site and the northernmost building is
now occupied by a welding company, with the middle building occupied by a
business trading in second-hand goods.
The building the subject of the
first complaint has a specific planning permission for use for car servicing
and repairs. I consider that the scale
of operations in connection with the laundry meant that that operation fell
within Class B2 (General Industrial Use).
The occupier of the vehicle repair
workshop did indicate that he would cease the use of the building and vacate
the site by December 2003. Whilst a recent site visit has indicated that the
Owner has started to reduce the number of vehicles stored on site, the use
continues and there is no indication when all the vehicles will be
removed.
The following
Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered relevant:
Strategic Policies
S1 - New development will be
concentrated within existing urban areas
S4 - The countryside will be
protected from inappropriate development
C1 (Protection of the Landscape
Character)
C8 (Nature Conservation as a
Material Consideration)
C9 (Sites of International
Importance for Nature Conservation)
C10 (Sites of National Importance
for Nature Conservation)
D2 (Standards of Design within the
site)
E8 (Employment in the Countryside)
G1 (Development Envelopes for
Towns and Villages)
G4 (General Locational criteria)
G5 (Development outside Defined
Settlements)
G10
(Potential conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding
Uses)
P1
(Pollution and Development)
P4
(Restoration of Derelict Land and Restoration of Eyesores)
TR7
(Highways Considerations for New Development)
U19 (Safeguarding of Aquifers and
Water Resources )
W7 (Scrap yards and Vehicle
dismantling)
None.
Options
1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the land on either side of Carpenters Lane for the storage of motor vehicles and the removal of these vehicles and associated items from the land.
Time period for
compliance 3 months.
2. To note the information presented in the report and without prejudice to the final decision to invite the operator of the vehicle repair workshop to submit a planning application to continue using the land on either side of Carpenters Lane for the storage of motor vehicles with any such application to be submitted within twenty-eight days.
3. To note the information presented in the report and to
acknowledge that the use of the former Vectra Engineering Building for car
servicing and repair, and the use of the adjoining land which forms the
compound to that building for the parking and storage of vehicles does not
represent a material change of use from when the premises were occupied and
operated by Vectra Engineering.
4. To serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town &
Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the motor vehicles parked
alongside Carpenters Lane on the basis that their continued presence is
detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.
5. To note the information presented in the report relating
to the use of the former laundry buildings and accept that no material change
of use has occurred.
6. To note the information but to take no further action.
Conclusion
This range of buildings has a
history of employment related activities dating back to the use by the laundry
and to the 1968 planning permission to Vectra Engineering for a car servicing
and repair workshop. On that basis, the
primary consideration in determining whether a breach of planning control has
taken place is to ascertain if any of the current uses of the buildings
represent a material change of use outside the use to which the building have
previously been put.
With regards to the former Vectra
Engineering Building, the planning permission granted in 1968 authorised an
independently operating car servicing and repair workshop. No conditions were imposed limiting the
scope of the vehicles. Under those
circumstances I do not consider that the continued use of that building by the
present occupant or the use of the adjoining compound represents a material
change of use. On that basis, no breach
of planning control has occurred.
I do not consider, however, that
this interpretation can be extended to the use of the land on either side of
Carpenters Lane, which continues to be used for the storage of motor
vehicles. Whist I accept that a certain
amount of use may have occurred in the past I do not interpret that as
establishing any formal use. By
comparison, given the number of vehicles positioned along the lane, I believe
that a material change of use has occurred.
I do not consider that such as use would be acceptable, both with regard
to the visual impact of the vehicles when viewed from Carpenters Lane, which is
also a public footpath, and also because of the potential harm that could arise
to the nearby designated Nature Conservation Area from any pollutants.
With regard to the other buildings,
it is my view that the former use of the site by the laundry was on a scale
that this would have been considered to be a general industrial operation
(B2). The use of the northernmost
building by the welding company is also considered to be a general industrial
use and accordingly no material change of use has taken place. Concerning the middle building which is
presently used by a second-hand goods trader, I am advised that he has been on
site for approximately 17 years, and potentially could be immune from any
enforcement action if this period of time were verified. In any event, whether his present operation
is considered to be B2, B1 or B8 the formal consent of the Planning Authority
would not be required for it to continue, and accordingly I see no breach of
planning control at those premises.
In conclusion, the actions of the
Local Planning Authority must in this particular instance be significantly
influenced by the former industrial use of the buildings, which must take
precedent over the policies of the Unitary Development Plan which would not
normally promote employment activity in this locality, nor take account of the
poor access of Carpenters Lane to the St Helens Road, bearing in mind that the
buildings would have attracted a certain level of traffic movements in their
former uses. Given the circumstances as
outlined above, I find that the only identifiable breach of planning control
relates to the use of the land on either side of the lane for the storage of
motor vehicles.
In the event that even this
interpretation of events is challenged I would invite Members to consider
whether they should also authorise Officers to serve a Notice under Section 215
of the Town & Country Planning Act on the basis that the vehicles alongside
Carpenters Lane adversely affect the amenity to the surrounding area. This would enable Officers to approach the
matter utilising two different powers, providing them with an alternative
remedy.
Human Rights
In coming
to the recommendation to pursue enforcement action consideration have been
given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of
the first protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on 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 the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan policies.
1.To serve an Enforcement Notice
requiring the cessation of the use of the land on either side of Carpenters
Lane for the storage of motor vehicles and the removal of these vehicles and
associated items from the land. Time
period for compliance 3 months.
3. To note the information presented in the report and to acknowledge that the use of the former Vectra Engineering Building for car servicing and repair, and the use of the adjoining land which forms the compound to that building for the parking and storage of vehicles does not represent a material change of use from when the premises were occupied and operated by Vectra Engineering.
4. To serve a Notice under Section 215
of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of the motor
vehicles parked alongside Carpenters Lane on the basis that their continued
presence is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.
5. To note the information presented in the report relating to the use of the former laundry buildings and accept that no material change of use has occurred.
(f) |
TCPE/25066 |
Refusal of planning permission for
the retention of building, providing storage/animal shelter/stabling for a
pony; retention of touring caravan; continued storage of two boats, part OS
Parcel 0091 and 0072, land south of Hulverstone Farm, Hulverstone Lane,
Hulverstone |
|
|
Officer: P. Barker |
Tel: (01983) 823573 |
To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the building, the touring caravan, and two boats from Part OS Parcel 0091 and 0072, land south of Hulverstone Farm, Hulverstone Lane, Hulverstone.
The planning application, which was
subsequently refused, was submitted as a result of a visit to the land by the
Planning Enforcement Officer following receipt of a complaint regarding its
untidy condition. When the Enforcement
Officer visited the land he found that a stable block consisting of two stables
and a tack room had been built without the benefit of planning permission. Inside the stable block he saw that there
was timber, furniture and carpets being stored. There were also three boats being stored outside the building,
one of which has subsequently been removed, and a small touring caravan. The landowner stated that the caravan had
been used for one night by his two children, and that its former use was for
overnight accommodation during the lambing season, although at that time there
was no livestock on the land.
The landowner was forced to sell the
farmhouse following a divorce, but stated that he had retained 11 acres, and at
the time of the complaint he said that he was just cutting this for hay but
that he might get back into keeping sheep.
Following refusal of planning
permission, no appeal has yet been received, and on 19 April 2004 the
Enforcement Officer visited the land and found that circumstances were
unchanged.
There are no financial implications.
1. To serve an Enforcement Notice
requiring the removal of the stable block and items stored therein, the removal
of the two boats and the removal of the caravan from the land within two months
of the Notice becoming effective.
2. To take no further action regarding the
stable building and stored items.
The planning application was refused because the use of the land and buildings for storage purposes detract from the appearance of the site and fail to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Acts 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and is also within the Heritage Coast, and in consequence, is contrary to Strategic Policy S4 (the countryside will be protected from inappropriate development) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C4 (Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. In view of the foregoing I feel that an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the building and stored items is appropriate.
Human Rights
In coming to this conclusion, 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. Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to take enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the landowner, this has to be balanced with the rights and freedom of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the landowner the proposed action is considered necessary for the protection of rights and freedom of others. The policy objections stated in respect of the continuing use of the property are those encompassed in the Councils Unitary Development Plan and it is not considered that the proposed use could be allowed to continue. It is also considered that the enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the stable block and items stored therein, the removal of the two boats and the removal of the caravan from the land within two months of the Notice becoming effective.
ANDREW
ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services