PAPER B2

Appeal Decision:		Allowed – 10 March 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The effect of the extensions on the character and appearance of the existing terrace of cottages.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· Although the design of the development is reasonably sympathetic, there would be some conflict with the overall character and rhythm of the rear of the building.
· On the other hand, the extensions would tend to subdivide and in part replace the long flat roof of the ground floor extension, and this would divert attention from the existing two storey flat roof extension at the end of the terrace.
· The extension will provide each dwelling with an additional small bedroom, which would be a welcome addition to the living space of these small cottages.
· On balance, the four identical extensions would cause no significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing terrace of cottages.
· Special conditions need to be imposed to ensure the development is implemented concurrently.
(b)	TCP/16072/E	Mr & Mrs Bennett against refusal for rear single storey ground floor extension and extension at first floor level to form alterations and a flat at 14 Victoria Road, Sandown
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 11 June 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 29 March 2004
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property with particular reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight.
· The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing and surrounding buildings.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The proposal would have a seriously detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property because it would appear overbearing and overdominant in terms of outlook from their property.
· The orientation of the buildings and the height and bulk of the first floor extension would lead to a loss of a significant amount of daylight and early morning sunlight to the occupiers of the neighbouring property.
· The development would lead to a tunnelling effect on the space between the two buildings and produce a dark and oppressive area to the doorway and windows to the detriment of the reasonable enjoyment by the present occupiers.
· The extension would take up a substantial part of the outside amenity space for the property.
· Whilst this amenity space is not currently available for the tenants, it is important to have regard to the long term needs of the property, and the extension would prejudice the use of this area for the purpose it was designed.
· The development would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and contrary to D1 and H7.
· The character and pattern of the immediate group of properties is defined by their deep rear projection on short parallel plots and is typical of terraced and semi-detached houses of this era.
· The proposed first floor extension would upset this pattern and present an unbalanced and ill-proportioned appearance to the pair of properties, and be detrimental to the group as a whole.
· The proposal would be incompatible with the existing building and its surroundings and contrary to D1, D2 and H7.

(c)	TCP/14373/G	Mr C Dixson against refusal for a detached house and garage and formation of vehicular access at Tredegar House, 15 Wood Street, Ryde
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 23 June 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 29 March 2004
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area.
· The impact of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the existing building and those of the neighbouring properties, with particular reference to amenity space, overlooking and outlook.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· Tredegar House, although not Listed, is not without character, which adds to the interest of the locality.
· The undeveloped garden allows important and imposing views of Tredegar House and Trinity Church.
· The 1999 Inspector formed an opinion that the development of this site would obscure attractive views of both buildings, and there is no reason to disagree with this decision.
· The proposed dwelling would not enhance the area as it would involve the severance of Tredegar House from its garden and would involve the felling of a semi-mature weeping willow tree which is itself a feature in this part of the Conservation Area.
· The removal of the existing stone boundary wall would be detrimental to the existing character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
· The development would neither protect or enhance the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area and would conflict with S10, H5, B6, G4, D1 and D2.
· The proposed development would allow for sufficient amenity space remaining for the residents of Tredegar House.
· The distance and arrangement of the two buildings would not cause harm to the living conditions of either set of occupiers and the development would therefore accord with D1 and H5.

(d)	TCP/13942/E	Mrs B Walker against refusal for conversion of double garage to form a dwelling on land rear of 1 Orchardleigh Road, Shanklin
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 10 November 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 1 April 2004
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The impact of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and those of the proposed development, with particular reference to outlook, privacy and amenity.
· The effect of the proposal on the character of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The proposed development would be too close to Mews Cottage to ensure the privacy of the occupiers of this property.
· There is no scope for any intervening boundary treatment which might mitigate the harm which would result from mutual overlooking.
· There would be additional loss of privacy from the comings and goings of residents and visitors to the dwelling.
· The proposal does not comply with D1 and H5.
· The present garage use conforms with the character of the area and performs the function of a rear service and car parking area for the properties surrounding it.
· The development would fail to respect the context in which it would be situated and does not therefore meet the objectives of PPG3 and PPG1.
· There would be a harmful effect on the character of the area and the development.

(e)	TCP/14584/E	Mr & Mrs I Mitchell against refusal for the rebuilding of barn to form dwelling with annexed unit of holiday accommodation.
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 7 November 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 2 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· Whether the proposed development would detract from the rural character of this area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The proposal would be contrary to established development plan policy.
· The presences of a new dwelling on this site where none exists at present would inevitably detract from the rural character of the area.
· If this application were to be approved the Council might well have difficulty in resisting residential development elsewhere in the countryside.
· The provision of an additional unit of holiday accommodation suitable for use by disabled people and the improvement of a derelict site are not sufficient argument for granting consent.

(f)	TCP/9787/C	Mr C Spelling against refusal of outline for a dwelling on land between 4 & 6 Ventnor Road, Apse Heath
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 20 August 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 2 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· Whether the proposed development would give rise to an increased road safety hazard.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The application shows that an area in front of the proposed dwelling would be used as a shared drive, serving both the existing and proposed new dwelling.
· It would be possible to park two cars on this land but there would be no facility to turn a car within the site.
· Visibility from the site access is extremely restricted and vehicles would have to manoeuvre to or from the highway in reverse gear.
· The additional use of this sub-standard access by the traffic generated by an extra dwelling would increase the road safety hazard to an unacceptable degree.
· The proposed development would be contrary to Policy TR7.

(g)	TCP/25572/A	Mr & Mrs D Gallop against refusal for a two storey rear extension at Temperence Cottage, Whiteley Bank, Wroxall
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 8 October 2003
Appeal Decision:		Allowed – 6 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The visual impact of the proposed development.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The cottage is one of a pair standing in open countryside.
· The cottage has a winding, difficult to negotiate staircase and has neither a bathroom nor internal w.c.
· The proposal will involve demolition of a range of single storey outbuildings and replace them with a two storey rear extension.
· The existing accommodation is seriously substandard and the proposed extension would rectify this.
· The height and mass of the proposed extension would not be dissimilar to the existing building.
· Weight is attached to the fact that some of the unsightly single storey structures would be removed.
· The extension would be visible from the surrounding area but would be partially screened by the existing cottages in the view from the road.
· On balance the visual impact would not be so great as to justify a refusal.
· The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the privacy of the neighbouring residents.

(h)	TCP/9477/D	Mr R Churchill against refusal for demolition of garages, conversion of coach house to form a dwelling and construction of a terrace of 3 houses and double garage
Officer Recommendation:		Approval
Committee Decision:		Refusal – 4 November 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 6 April 2004
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Areas.
· The impact on the amenity of people living nearby.
· The implications of the proposed development for road safety.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The existing garages do not make a significant visual contribution to the area but their use for storage of vehicles may well reflect the historic function of the yard as a mews.
· The proposed terraced would appear cramped even in this urban setting with no aspect at all the rear and the high blank wall providing a rather unattractive feature in the setting of the adjacent Listed Building.
· The proposed garage at the end of the proposed terrace would be ill proportioned with its large door dominating the proposed development.
· The development would detract from the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area.
· The windows in the proposed terrace would directly face windows in the rear elevations of the houses in Nelson Street across a gap of little more than 11 metres which would detract from the privacy of residents to an unacceptable degree.
· Use of the proposed parking spaces would obstruct the existing rear access to some of the Nelson Street properties.
· The proposal would be contrary to D1 and G4.
· The number of vehicular movements generated by the proposed dwellings would be unlikely to exceed the potential number generated by the existing garages.
· The proposed development would not add to the road safety hazard in this area.

(i)	E/25477	Mr R Coombes against Enforcement Notice relating to the change of use of residential to the operation of a taxi service business
Officer Recommendation:		Enforcement action to cease the use
Committee Decision:		Enforcement action – 22 July 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 7 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· Whether the use of the appeal property for the operation of a taxi/private hire business is detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring residents and of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The thrust of the Development Plan Policy is that development should be compatible with existing uses.
· PPG4 recognises that it is not necessarily appropriate to separate small scale industrial and commercial uses from residential communities for whom they are a source of employment provided they do not adversely affect residential amenities or generate excess of traffic.
· This taxi business employs some 20 people but not necessarily local residents and operates on a significant scale of 21 vehicles and a breakdown truck.
· The 24 hour operation of such a business from a dwelling on a residential estate with the associated comings and goings of vehicles unavoidably harms residential amenity through noise and disturbance.
· The parking of vehicles on the appeal property forecourt is visually unattractive and the parking of company vehicles on the relatively narrow estate road is likely to increase hazards for road users.
· The appeal site is not a suitable location for the business which is incompatible with the character and amenity of the area and is contrary to G4 and G10.
· It is not the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority to seek out and suggest an alternative site and the appellants difficulty in finding a convenient alternative base for the business does not justify it to continue in the present inappropriate location.

(j)	TCP/22633/B	Mr & Mrs S Dollery against refusal for removal of occupancy condition which requires the dwelling to be occupied only as an integral part of the adjacent garage premises at Ashey View, Ashey Road, Ryde
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal (Part 1) – 12 June 2004
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 15 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· Whether the removal of the condition would undermine the Council’s adopted policies for the countryside having regard to the principles of sustainable development.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The development was allowed as an exception to the normal policies because of the security needs of this rural business and its convenient operation.
· To remove the condition would mean the dwelling could be sold off for general use thereby undermining established countryside policy.
· The condition is not unreasonable as the property can still be occupied by the appellants or future workers at the garage.
· The supervision afforded by the presence of the dwelling is a contributory factor minimising crime in this remote location.
· The absence of this supervision would lead to an increase in crime rather than the reverse.
· The previous appeal Inspector concluded that the appeal dwelling was essential for security purposes and there is no reason to disagree with these findings.
· The appellants’ need for semi-retirement on health grounds does not at the present carry overriding weight.
· An up-to-date marketing exercise which has been sufficiently extensive, appropriately targeted or sustained intensively for long enough has not taken place.
· The condition is necessary and reasonable and to allow the appeal would undermine policies S4, G1, G5 and H9.

(k)	TCP/3664/V	Mr P Roberts against refusal for the demolition of garages and outbuildings, removal of caravans and outline for 10 dwellings at Mountfield Holiday Park, Norton Green, Freshwater
Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
Committee Decision:		Refusal – 9 May 2003
Appeal Decision:		Dismissed – 15 April 2004
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
· The effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
· The effects of the proposed development on the site’s tourist function having regard to the development plan, national policies and other material considerations.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
· The proposal does not comprise a specific locally affordable housing scheme or meet any of the other exception criteria and is in conflict with S1, G1, H4 and H9.
· The establishment of dwellings in this area would amount to an urban intrusion that would be inconsistent with the site’s rural setting.
· The development would amount to a significant extension of the existing village but would be inconsistent with its generally linear nature.
· The proposal would seriously harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with UDP Policies.
· The proposed housing development would preclude the reinstatement of tourist accommodation on this site.
· The development would conflict with the general thrust of the UDP to promote tourism as a growth industry on the Island and would conflict with the Plan’s aim of protecting existing tourism assets.
· The present standard of accommodation falls short of that now demanded by holiday makers.
· It is possible another operator could come forward thereby safeguarding the future of holiday accommodation on the site in line with policy objectives.
· In the absence of a marketing exercise, the appellant has not fully examined the practicability of maintaining a tourism related use on the site.
· Sufficient housing land is already allocated and housing need does not override the conclusions detailed above.
· Norton Green is not a sustainable location for new housing and significant housing proposals should, more properly, be evaluated through the UDP process.

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

1.	NEW APPEALS LODGED
	TCP/5077/L	Mr I C Ridges and Miss A P Ridges against refusal of outline for house, Chale Green Stores, Chale Green, Ventnor
	TCP/10563/L	Miss A Bishop against refusal for change of use from hotel and self-contained annexe to dwelling and self-contained annexe at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin
	TCP/18349/S	Indigo Homes Ltd against refusal of demolition of dwelling and construction of a terrace of 4 town houses; 3/6 storey building to form 10 flats, formation of vehicular access at Essex House, Baring Road, Cowes
	TCP/20244/M	St Catherine’s School against refusal for portable building to provide 2 classrooms at St Margaret’s, Grove Road, Ventnor
	TCP/25191/B	Mrs S Hicky against refusal for demolition of farmhouse and the erection of a detached farmhouse, integral garage and vehicular access at Durrants Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield, Newport
	LBC/16062/J	Dr M Patterson against refusal of Listed Building Consent for alterations to form 17 storage units and hoist at 13B Union Road, Ryde
	E/20443/H	Mr F J Colson against Enforcement Notice relating to residential caravans at Hawthorn Manor Farm, Chale Green
	E/20443/H	Mr D Evans against Enforcement Notice, Caravan No. 2 at Hawthorn Manor Farm, Chale Green
	E/26102	Mr F J Colson against Enforcement Notice relating to residential caravans at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green
	E/26102	Mr R S McKinley against Enforcement Notice relating to caravan 1B at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green
	E/26102	Mr D K Greenwood against Enforcement Notice relating to Caravan 2A at Sheep Lane Farm, Chale Green
	TCP/1813/N	Rybarn Limited against refusal for demolition of building and the construction of a two storey building and two/three storey building to form 14 flats with parking, Clifton Home for the Elderly, Broadway, Totland Bay
	TCP/10386/G	Mr J Gosling against refusal for chalet bungalow and vehicular access, land adjacent 18 Marlborough Close, Ryde
	TCP/6977/L	Mr G Winnard against refusal for demolition of garage/workshop and construction of an attached house, 137 Clarence Road, East Cowes
	TCP/7209/E	Mr R Gardner against refusal of outline for a bungalow on land rear of 184, Baring Road, Cowes
	TCP/19380/P	Gurnard Pines Holdings Ltd. against variation of holiday occupancy condition to remove reference to 6 week limit at Gurnard Pines Holiday Village, Cockleton Lane, Cowes.

3.	REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
	(a)	TCP/25634 TCP/25522/A TCP/25640 TCP/25757	Mr & Mrs McLintock, Mr M Smith, Mr & Mrs M Lynskey and Mr & Mrs P Peplow against refusal for rear first floor extension at Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 Fort Victoria Cottages, Westhill Lane, Norton, Yarmouth.
	Officer Recommendation:		Refusal
	Committee Decision:		Refusal – 2 September 2003

PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS