PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 12 MARCH 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

1.       THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2.       THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3.       THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5.       THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Legal Services Manager, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 12 MARCH 2002

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

http://www.iwight.com/council/committees/Mod-development_control/12-3-02/agenda.htm

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 12 MARCH 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 12 MARCH 2002

(a)      TCP/6079H                        34 Atherley Road                                     SHANKLIN

(b)      G/23/1/U &                         OS Parcel 7600,

          TCP/24154/P776/01          Whiteoaks Lane,                                      PORCHFIELD

(c)      U/370/00                            Land from west of Morton Brook

                                                     to Perowne Way                                      SANDOWN

(d)                                                 Flyposting Across the Island

PART II

Site and Location

Application relates to land currently used for mixed use of agriculture/horticulture situated on eastern side of Briddlesford Road bounded to north and east by Littletown Lane which is unmade track.

Relevant History

Application seeking agricultural prior approval for two storage buildings on part OS Parcel 6066 was approved by letter dated 20 December 2000.

Application seeking consent for stable block, tack room and feed store together with alterations to vehicular access approved in October 2000. This development which occupies an adjacent field to the west has been implemented.

Details of Application

There are several aspects to current submission which seeks retrospective consent for the various works.

In respect of the two storage buildings approved under agricultural prior notification procedure, consent is sought to use one building (A) to provide covered yard containing animals, tractors and agricultural machinery with second building (B) currently used as part stable and tack room and agricultural workshop with agricultural storage. Each building measures approximately 20 metres by 11.5 metres finished in dark green profiled steel cladding and are located at eastern end of site to the side of rear of principal dwelling on site.

Retention of sand school which measures 39 by 25 metres which is located directly behind one of aforementioned buildings.

Retention of hardstanding area in front of buildings.

Retention of tarmacked access road which runs diagonally across site in north westerly/south easterly direction. Road is approximately 5.8 metres wide and is fenced on both sides giving access to recently constructed buildings and forecourt.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Application site lies in open countryside outside any designated development envelope and it is considered the following policies of Unitary Development Plan are particularly relevant:

S4 - Protection of Countryside from Inappropriate Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within Site.

D3 - Landscaping.

G2 - Consolidation of Settlements Outside Development Envelopes.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G10 - Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C15 - Appropriate Agricultural Diversification.

C8 - Agricultural Support Activities.

C22 - Keeping of Horses for Recreational Purposes.

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside.

C25 - All Weather Riding Facilities.

Representations

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Environmental Health Officer advises that initially there were concerns regarding close proximity of Building A to nearby residential property in respect of potential disamenity which could have been caused as a result of use of building for livestock housing. Having spoken to applicant's agent, he has confirmed there are no animals at present, but proposal to use building for sheep and chickens. On this basis he raises no objection to application subject to condition attached to any consent restricting use of this building to ensure no livestock is kept within this building.

Evaluation

Main planning considerations are firstly, development plan policy contained within the Unitary Development Plan, relevant national guidance and appropriateness of development in this rural location.

Planning background indicates that both building (A) and (B) as identified on submitted plan were approved under Agricultural Prior Notification Procedure on the premise that such buildings were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Just prior to this decision planning consent granted for stable block on adjoining field.

Since these planning decisions have been issued and following formal complaint to this office Planning Contravention Notice has been issued seeking to clarify in particular use to which "agricultural" buildings are put to. Returned Notice confirms date on which both buildings and sand school were constructed and also advises that non-agricultural storage and keeping of non-agricultural livestock commenced in June 2001.

National guidance in PPG7 seeks to ensure rural development is of appropriate design and scale for its location. Guidance note goes on to state that in many rural areas provision needs to be made for new buildings as well as re-use of existing buildings and sensitive small scale new developments can be accommodated in and around many settlements. Note also points out in paragraph 3.4 that agricultural and forestry permitted development rights are granted to

meet farming and forestry needs and they should not be abused to circumvent normal planning policies on new building in open countryside.

Members should also be aware that amendments to the GPDO in 1997 provide for situations where buildings approved under Prior Notification do not remain in agricultural use. Briefly, regulations state that if a building erected under specified Agricultural Permitted Development Rights after 1997 permanently ceases to be used for agriculture within ten years of its substantial completion, and planning permission has not been granted authorising development for purposes other than agriculture within three years of the permanent cessation of its agricultural use and there is no outstanding appeal, the building must be removed unless the Local Planning Authority has agreed otherwise.

 Policies of the Unitary Development Plan generally seek to ensure appropriate design standards for all development. Policy C1 seeks to support appropriate development in the countryside provided landscape is protected. Policy C15 along with advice contained within PPG7 supports principle of agricultural diversification.

Policy C18 generally supports related agricultural activity provided such development requires rural location, is of benefit to rural economy, is well designed, does not have significant impact on nearby residential property, has adequate road access and does not detract from landscape beauty.

In respect of keeping of horses and related activity Policy C22 supports such recreational use subject to specific criteria. Similar provisions relate to siting of stable blocks and provision of all-weather riding facilities in countryside.

In respect of buildings constructed, applicant maintains that building (A) is to be used for housing of livestock (sheep and chickens) whilst building (B) will be used partly for stabling of horse together with ancillary hay storage and agricultural machinery material. Workshop area is intended to be used for work in connection with farm.

From a recent site inspection it does not appear that either building is used for related agricultural storage purposes with building (A) incorporating tractor, dumper trucks, pick-up van, private vehicle, building materials, cement mixer and generator and with building B comprising block work stable unit together with storage of hay, timber sheets and further building material.

Whilst in principle the use of building (A) for keeping of sheep and chickens may be acceptable, particularly bearing in mind comments from Environmental Health Officer, I am of the opinion that, as currently used, neither building is likely to satisfy requirements of Prior Notification decision in that buildings are not used as originally intended under Prior Notification and specified in application, which stated buildings to be used for hay and agricultural machinery storage barn. Furthermore, design and external finish of building are not considered appropriate for such usage.

In terms of building (B), clearly use of part of this building for stabling is not appropriate and again in design terms, any building incorporating steel clad structure and block work would not normally be permitted for stabling purposes.

In terms of sand school such feature it is felt should be more appropriately located close to or adjoining approved stable block and not in relatively remote location, presumably being utilised by stable unit within building (B).

With regards to recently constructed tarmac access road which runs diagonally across site, agent, in support, states that access point referred to was served by 2.5 metre wide road poorly constructed of compacted earth which, due to sharp bend, was not accessible by many vehicles. New access road was constructed to it's current specification and width to aid delivery of

materials for construction of barns (A) and (B), to allow emergency service access to client's property and to enable easier access for modern farm vehicles.

Point should be made that site is bounded by access track way on two sides and at time of Agricultural Prior Notification it was assumed the buildings would be utilising access at or adjacent to existing dwelling house. Whilst not ideal, standard of access is similar to many other agricultural concerns and it is not considered sufficiently serious in terms of standard to warrant construction of new roadway which, given its size and method of construction, represents significant feature in locality. Indeed, it is considered that roadway has fundamentally altered rural character of area and is far in excess of what would normally be required to service agricultural buildings.

Finally, area of land between buildings and track way has been laid with scalpings to provide hardstand area and whilst works in itself may not be considered to be unreasonable this aspect of application should be read in conjunction with application as submitted in it's entirety when considering impact of scheme on locality.

Consent for both buildings was granted on agricultural justification in this rural location. From previous comments and inspection there are serious concerns as to whether or not buildings are currently put to active agricultural related uses and certainly within building (B), formation of stable block and associated hay storage are without doubt not agricultural and it is important to note that construction of such stable blocking materials used would not be supported by the Planning Authority. Stable blocks are generally approved on basis of traditional finish, i.e. timber with felted or clad roofs in compliance with policy, and construction of stable block within block work and corrugated sheeted building would not be favourably considered by Committee. In respect of sand school, given that keeping of horses cannot be supported in planning terms within these buildings the sand school itself is inappropriately located, remote from approved stable complex and itself represents additional visual intrusion in rural landscape. In order to minimise such impact such facilities are expected to be located close to stable complex they serve.

The construction of the access road both in terms of it's scale, design and construction is considered inappropriate and somewhat excessive to serve buildings approved under Prior Notification. It is considered that both holding and buildings together with dwelling house could reasonably be served from existing tracks and there is therefore no over-riding justification for such works. Furthermore, the laying of a 5.8 metre wide road with tarmac finish and enclosed fencing has, in my opinion, had considerable detrimental visual impact on locality and fundamentally altered former rural character of landscape.

For reasons outlined above I consider works in their totality have had adverse impact on rural character of locality and there are serious planning objections to retention of some of these facilities and use of buildings for non-agricultural purposes and I recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that there are serious planning objections to this application which significantly change the character and appearance of the locality. I therefore consider the scheme to be contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies S4, G2, G5, D1, C1, C23 and C25 and have no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal.

1.        Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

2.        Recommendation         -      That enforcement action be authorised to secure the removal of the building and adjoining fencing and sand paddock and fencing and to discontinue the use of the buildings approved under prior notification procedure for non-agricultural use and storage purposes with a three month period for compliance.

This application was due to be considered at the meeting held on 16 October 2001, but was deferred at officer's request to allow opportunity to consult Environment Agency with regard to third party comment received concerning possible flooding of site.

Site and Location

Application relates to land adjacent The Tirol/Ponda Rosa complex situated on western side of Ashey Road to south of built-up area of Ryde. Majority of development complex is located north of application site which itself comprises large undeveloped open area of land.

Relevant History

In 1971 outline application for 60 unit motel and further outline submission for 20 unit motel, two semi-detached houses for managerial staff were refused. Subsequent appeals were allowed and twelve motel units were constructed, these being located in north western corner of site immediately adjacent former manager's accommodation.

In 1990 detailed application for 48 self-catering holiday homes was refused on grounds of undesirable intensification, low standard of design, unsatisfactory standard of environment, conflict with policy and insufficient detail.

Application in respect of 30 single storey self-catering holiday units on land subject of current application was granted consent by former Borough Planning Committee in August 1993 subject to planning obligation ensuring no further development on adjoining land. Legal agreement was not entered into and in view of the lapsed time, application was treated as being formally withdrawn.

Lawful Development Certificate issues in respect of twelve former holiday bungalows located to rear of complex. Certificate issued on basis of evidence provided which indicated that holiday bungalows have been used as separate self-contained residential units for at least last ten years.

Consent granted in May 1999 for conversion of reception building to form ten holiday lets.

More recently, outline application for 30 holiday apartments approved in October 1999 subject to conditions restricting occupancy to holiday accommodation, six week period, landscaping and highway issues.

Details of Application

Originally submitted scheme involved full detailed application seeking consent for construction of three buildings on site provided tourist related development.

Briefly, proposal involved construction of three main buildings comprising two one/two storey guesthouse providing entrance facilities, communal lounge, dining room/kitchen and reception area at ground floor level with bedrooms above, single storey five bedroom block and covered parking area. Buildings would be located around courtyard which will be served off existing main roadway through complex.

Scheme has now been revised to incorporate only guesthouse with slight repositioning.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Site not allocated for any specific purpose within Unitary Development. However, for policy purposes, site lies outside any recognised development envelope boundary and is therefore countryside.

The following policies are considered relevant to this application:

Policy G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements does allow for planning approval to be granted exceptionally where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped and involves either appropriate small scale rural tourist development or small scale development ancillary to existing tourist use.

Policy D1 relates to standards of design.

Policy T1 seeks to promote and support tourism and extend tourist season.

Policy T3 advises on criteria for development of holiday accommodation and that applications for holiday accommodation will only be approved where they are associated with existing permanent accommodation site or involve a new hotel, similar serviced accommodation or self-catering accommodation where extension of tourist season is promoted and that Council is satisfied that development will be retained for holiday use.

Policy T10 seeks to ensure that new tourist accommodation is appropriately controlled by conditions or agreements to prevent permanent use for residential purposes.

Representations

Highway Engineer advises that visibility when leaving site is very poor in both directions with previous planning conditions imposed giving maximum height within sight lines of one metre. Given that proposal would result in intensification of use, he considers maximum height within visibility splays should not exceed 0.3 metres. Sufficient parking/turning space is provided and he recommends standard conditions being imposed on any consent.

One letter has been received which comments that previous applications for development incorporating two storey buildings have been rejected and if current scheme is approved, then first floor windows facing north should be of non-opening type and glazed with obscure glass to maintain amenities of adjoining residential property. Additionally, concern is expressed regarding highway safety, particularly in respect of standard of access, inadequate visibility and reduced width of access point.

Further letter raises no objection, but raises concern about drainage of land and earthworks have appeared on site and potential to raise ground levels. Writer relates to flooding last year.

Further letter received also raises issue of land drainage and again writer has no objection in principle.

Following consultation, Environmental Agency comment that they have no objection in principle to development subject to appropriate land drainage consents. They are aware of possible flooding in vicinity of site and advise that applicants should carry out local investigations to determine extent of flooding and set floor levels accordingly. Applicant has employed chartered engineer to comment on issue of flood risk. Findings of his report are summarised in Evaluation section.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment.

Evaluation

Main planning considerations relate principally to policy matters, impact on locality and previous relevant decisions made on this site.

Whilst site is unallocated in Unitary Development Plan, it is established leisure site with pub/restaurant and holiday accommodation and (now) unrestricted residential accommodation to rear. Generally speaking, proposal in seeking to provide serviced motel accommodation accords with tourist policies which seek to promote such development and which can be exceptionally allowed outside development envelope boundaries (Policy T3).

In respect of visual impact, whilst it should be appreciated that approach of former Borough in respect of previous applications on this site has sought to limit height of development to single storey, guesthouse block situated on southern boundary of site adjacent stream, provides for accommodation in roof resulting in construction of modest size dormer windows. Given design of buildings, overall characteristic of development is low profile with maximum height to ridge of guesthouse of some 7.5 metres above ground level. I do not therefore consider there is any reasonable planning objection to visual impact of proposal when seen in context of overall complex.

In comparison to outline approval for 30 units, application site is somewhat smaller and as a result, proposed development is more compact in terms of footprint having less obtrusive parking areas. It should be noted however, that strip of land along western boundary of site whilst allocated for nature/recreation area does provide opportunity for further expansion by way of built units should enterprise prove successful.

Given orientation and distances from adjoining property, I do not consider proposal will have any undue adverse effect on amenities of those occupiers.

Report prepared by chartered engineer in respect of flood risk advises that unnamed tributary of Monktonmead Brook forms southern boundary of site. Report goes on to state that this is a small watercourse draining small undeveloped catchment area of land west of Ashey Road with only significant development draining to watercourse being that of development around Ponda Rosa. It is understood that relatively minor local flooding of site occurred in September 2000 when 47 mm of rain was recorded at Carisbrooke. At that time watercourse, including syphon under Ashey Road, had been neglected for a number of years and watercourse itself had been partially blocked. Immediately following flooding obstruction was cleared and applicant cleared out watercourse and cut back vegetation from banks and it is understood that no further flooding has occurred since that date. Environment Agency has no record of past floods in area. In his opinion, report of flooding instance is isolated one with identifiable cause, i.e. blockages and obstruction of watercourse. Now this has been remedied, in his opinion reoccurrence is unlikely, particularly if watercourse is properly maintained in future. There is no record of general flooding affecting site and therefore risk of such effect in development future is very small.

In the light of Environment Agency's comments and the report commissioned by the applicant, there would appear to be little or no risk of flooding given works carried out and therefore no reasonable objection can be raised on this particular issue.

In respect of previous decisions on this site and Unitary Development Plan policy which seeks to encourage such development, I do not consider there is any reasonable planning objection in principle to proposed development.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of this site for tourist purposes is consistent with

relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

       Recommendation         -      Approval (revised scheme)

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

This application relates to buildings situated to the south of Horringford House which is accessed on the eastern side of the main road to the south of Arreton Village. The buildings comprise a relatively modern farm building which is used as a packing shed for the business which consists of growing and packaging of vegetables which are provided for delivery under a box scheme whereby customers place orders which are then boxed up for delivery. The application also includes a disused former cart shed and semi-derelict pigsty situated adjacent to the access track and this building is proposed for conversion to a dwelling, as well as construction of a new single storey processing shed.

Nearby buildings include Horringford House and Horringford Cottage which are in residential use and a range of former farm buildings to the north west, some of which have been converted for residential occupation and some are undergoing conversion in accordance with previous planning permissions.

The site is access by a long unmade gravel track and there is substantial hedge screening to the roadside boundary. Site levels fall to the north and east and parts of the buildings are therefore lower than the level of the access track itself.

Relevant History

There have been a number of previous applications relating to alterations and extensions to Horringford House and Horringford Cottage, both of which are listed buildings in established residential use. Previous applications also relate to conversion of the former barns to the western side to form five self-contained living units and consents have also been granted for residential use of the former coach house. Members are advised that all the above buildings are considered to be within the curtilage of an integral part of the setting of the main dwelling which is a listed building and the barns themselves are of some historic character being of considerable age and constructed of natural stone and some brickwork. The buildings are grouped around a former farmyard on the western side of the main house and form an integral part of the group of historic buildings.

A planning application relating to the buildings which forms part of this application was considered in 1991. The application was the conversion of the former farm buildings to form two units of holiday accommodation and was withdrawn following a recommendation for refusal on the grounds of the proposal being contrary to the rural Development Plan policies and because the proposed accommodation was considered to be capable of permanent residential occupation which would be contrary to adopted policy regarding residential developments in rural areas.

Consent was refused in 1997 for removal of conditions which restricted the erection of boundary fences and walls on the site related to the former coach house. The proposal was considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and contrary to the original concept of the layout of the development which would detract from the pleasant and open character and appearance of the existing buildings, including Horringford House which is a listed building.

Members may recall that a previous application for similar development on this site was considered by the Committee last Autumn and was the subject of a site inspection on 26 October 2001. The application was refused for three reasons which related to the proposed alterations, extension and reconstruction of the former cart shed building which were considered to be excessive and prejudicial to the appearance of the existing building and the amenities of the environment and the locality as well as compromising the character and setting of the nearby listed buildings and proposals were therefore considered to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, C17 and B6.

Details of Application

Planning permission is requested for continued use of the relatively modern agricultural building as a store and packing shed in connection with the vegetable packing and delivery business which has operated on the site for some time, together with conversion of the former cart shed with ancillary structures into a dwelling which would be occupied by the owner of the business and his business partner. This would include infilling of the open fronted cart shed element, together with alterations and reconstruction of the former pigsties and the extension at the eastern end of the building including provision of some first floor accommodation in the roof space comprising a bedroom and office area.

The application also includes alterations to the existing packing and processing building including cladding with stained timber boarding and construction of a covered lean-to on the south western elevation. In addition, a new single storey timber clad building is proposed in the south eastern area of the site to be used for packaging of the vegetables ready for delivery and this building would also be clad with stained timber boarding to match the proposed alterations to the existing structure.

The application has been accompanied by a detailed business plan for the property together with supplementary information submitted by the applicant. Copies of this information are attached as an appendix to the report.

In summary, the information indicated that the business started as a small scale vegetable sorting and packing operation where customers place prior orders which are then boxed up and delivered to them. The business has been successful and has grown recently and is managed by the applicant who currently lives in one of the converted barns to the west.

It is indicated that the horticultural project can bring eighteen jobs to the countryside within the next year and would make beneficial use of the existing buildings which are part of the historic site. In view of the low margins and long working hours, the project is only viable if residential and commercial facilities are combined because many of these are dual purpose and require long hours of work and management.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The site is situated in a rural area outside any designated development envelope and forms part of a group of buildings including Horringford House itself which is listed Grade II and the adjacent barns which are considered to be of some historic interest. The buildings forming part of this application are however, somewhat separated from the remainder of the group and are of less historic interest, although the former cart shed itself is constructed of brick and is approximately 100 years old.

Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan Policy C17 together with Government advice contained in PPG7 relating to reuse of rural buildings are considered to be applicable to this proposal.

The above policy indicates that applications for reuse and adaption of rural buildings for employment, recreation or tourism purposes will normally be approved providing various criteria

are met. Applications for reuse and adaption to residential use must comply with similar criteria, but will be refused unless:

every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreation or tourism use for the building; or

residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for employment, recreation or tourism use; or

the building is of historic and architectural merit; or

conditions or agreements are applied prohibiting further extensions, alterations or outbuildings.

Guidance notes accompanying the above policy indicate that reuse and adaption of rural buildings can have an important role in meeting the needs of rural areas for employment use and can reduce demands for new buildings in the countryside, provide jobs and reduce vacancy and dereliction. The residential conversion is likely to have a minimal economic impact, although in some cases it could play a major role in meeting identified housing needs. Where buildings are considered to be of some historic merit, the principle of reuse should generally be to secure their survival, but without alterations, damage on their essential character or setting. Development should therefore seek to avoid situations where barns are not being conserved, but are in effect new buildings and should also avoid undue change in architectural or historic character.

In addition, Policy D1 (Standards of Design) indicates that development will be permitted only where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and applications will be expected to show good quality of design and should conform to various criteria including the following:

respect the visual integrity of the site and distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

be of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses;

do not constitute over development, leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness, but include appropriate space in between properties;

retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features which will significantly contribute to the area.

Policy B2 relates to the setting of listed buildings and indicates proposals which adversely affect the appearance or setting or curtilage of a listed building will not be permitted and indicate that unsympathetic development may seriously detract from the appearance and/or setting of a listed building.

Strategic Policy G5 relates to development outside defined settlements and indicates that these may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped and has appropriate scale and relates to one of various categories of development including the following:

development connected with agriculture, forestry, fisheries and related ancillary activities;

appropriate small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial or community development;

appropriate small scale development to create or sustain rural employment;

appropriate small scale specific types of housing developments.

Representations

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

Environmental Health Officer comments that applicant intends to install refrigeration equipment and details of this should be submitted and approved prior to installation.

Final date for receipt of representations is 8 March 2002 and any further comments will be reported.

Evaluation

This application relates to a site containing former farm buildings with the more modern building currently being used as a processing and packing shed in connection with the vegetable packing and delivery business which has been set up on the site. The business is owned and managed by the applicants who currently live in one of the converted barns to the western side of Horringford House.

The submitted details indicate that the business is expanding and in order to remain viable, will require extension and alterations to the buildings and also conversion of the adjacent former cart shed to form residential accommodation for the owner and his business partner.

The application now under consideration has been submitted following the previous refusal and is for a revised scheme submitted in an attempt to minimise the alterations to the existing cart shed structure in connection with its conversion to a manager's dwelling whilst also providing for the construction of an additional timber clad single storey building on the site for use as a packing unit. The construction of the additional packing unit would allow some of the accommodation which was formerly intended within the converted cart shed to be provided elsewhere, thereby minimising the extension and alterations proposed to this traditional building.

The details in respect of the domestic conversion of the former cart shed now under consideration show infilling the open frontage behind the existing timber posts with new timber cladding and glazed doors and windows. In addition, the former pigsties to the rear of the building would be re-roofed with a new pitched gabled roof similar to but slightly lower than the main roof over the cart shed. The small area at the eastern end of the roof would be reconstructed to contain some first floor accommodation within the roof space comprising an additional bedroom and office space served by roof lights and contained behind the roof pitches. The majority of the accommodation would now therefore be contained within the original walls of the old cart shed and the previous proposals incorporating significant extensions/reconstruction have been omitted. Whilst the conversion and alterations would still result in some increase in the overall volume of the buildings, together with alterations to its appearance, I consider that the overall effect of these has now been reduced and would reflect the traditional form and characteristics of this building.

Members will also note that the scheme under consideration includes construction of an additional timber clad detached building to the south east of the former cart shed to be used as a packing shed. Whilst this building would extend into the undeveloped part of the site, it would be situated at a lower level and would not be unduly prominent in the landscape and would relate well in terms of its appearance and scale to the existing buildings. Overall I consider this

element of the proposal to be satisfactory and has allowed a reduction in the overall accommodation required within the converted cart shed.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the details now under consideration represent a significant reduction in the degree of alterations and visual impact relating to the conversion of the former cart shed which, on balance, are now considered to be acceptable in relation to the traditional character and appearance of this building.

This is however to some extent off-set by the proposal to construct a new detached timber clad building to the south east of the cart shed which would be used for packaging and distribution of the vegetables in connection with the remainder of the business. Whilst resulting in the construction of an additional building on site, I am of the opinion that this would be in a relatively well screened location and would be similar in character and appearance to the existing processing building. On balance I consider this to be preferable to the extensive alterations and extensions formerly proposed to the traditional cart shed.

The overall use of the site for vegetable processing, packaging and distribution is considered to be acceptable and would generate employment within the rural area in accordance with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies C16 and C17 as well as guidelines contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. The use of the former cart shed for ancillary residential accommodation is also considered to be acceptable in principle in accordance with Policy C17 and the alterations to the building as now proposed would retain its overall form and character and thereby not harm the visual amenities of the locality or the setting of the nearby listed buildings and traditional barns in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy B2.

Overall the details now under consideration are considered to have addressed the previous reasons for refusal relating to the alterations and extension of the cart shed and would result in rural diversification and generation of employment whilst reusing existing structures.

The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable and I recommend accordingly subject to conditions that the residential accommodation shall only be occupied in connection with the operation of the business on the site.

       Recommendation         -      Approval (standard barn conversion letter)

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

This application relates to a natural stone building abutting the highway verge on the eastern side of Pound Lane forming part of a complex of former farm buildings and farmhouse. The complex includes Fullholding Farmhouse with other agricultural buildings to the south and east. To the north, immediately adjacent the barn is a garden area to farmhouse which is set back 20 metres from the road.

Relevant History

Consent granted in February 1988 for conversion of the barn to form living accommodation, office, store and garage. Consent was subject to conditions and a legal agreement to the effect that the accommodation should be used ancillary to the occupation of the main farmhouse and should not be sold off, sublet or used as a separate unit of accommodation. Application to vary condition to allow dwelling to be used as holiday accommodation and short-term winter let was refused in September 1995, but was allowed on appeal subject to restriction confining the function of the holiday accommodation during the summer months, i.e. 1 April to 30 September.

Consent granted for conversion of adjacent buildings for tourist accommodation.

Details of Application

The application now under consideration is for change of use from holiday accommodation to permanent living accommodation and the applicant has confirmed that this would not involve any alterations to the interior or exterior of the building itself. The applicant has submitted supporting information indicating that there are two mains reasons behind the application.

Firstly, as a result of the applicant's age and personal circumstances, it is not clear how much longer she would be able or willing to manage the holiday flat.

Secondly, the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act will come into force in 2004 which will require providers of services to make reasonable adjustments in relation to physical features of their premises to overcome physical barriers to access. As the accommodation is on the first floor, it would be extremely difficult to comply with the new access requirements and probably very expensive. Applicant also comments that Island tourism appears in sharp decline and last summer there were more complaints about the high cost of ferries. The majority of visitors were not here for the main holiday, but as a second family break and visitors are unlikely to return next year.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The application relates to a former farm building in a rural location well outside any designated development envelope.

Members will be aware that the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policy C17 would allow for conversion of rural buildings for business or tourism uses, but would only allow

conversion for permanent dwellings as a last resort if no other viable use can be found for the building.

Policy C15 relates to appropriate agricultural diversification and indicates that development in connection with diversification of existing farms or estates will be permitted so long as evidence is provided preferably in a whole farm plan to show that the proposed enterprise will be well integrated into the existing operation and is likely to provide long-term source of employment and income to support the business as a whole. Proposals which would cause unacceptable severance or disruption of farm units are likely to threaten the viability of farm units and will not be permitted.

Policy T9 indicates that proposals for small scale rural tourism or developments ancillary to existing farming operations will be acceptable in principle provided certain criteria are met.

Policy T10 indicates that applications for tourist accommodation will only be approved where permission is subject to conditions or agreements appropriate to secure approved holiday related use and prevent its permanent use for residential purposes.

Policy H9 refers to residential development outside development boundaries and indicates that such applications will only be permitted if they are for one of the following categories:

a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling; or

an essential dwelling for an agricultural unit; or

the conversion of a rural building, provided no other alternative use is feasible; or

essential to the operation of an approved tourist use; or

a specific locally affordable housing scheme; or

an acceptable infilling of a gap in an otherwise built-up group of houses.

Representations

Parish Council raise no objection.

Head of Isle of Wight Tourism Services raises strong objection to proposed change of use and is not aware of any specific circumstances which would support the application. (Members are advised that a copy of applicant's letter has been sent to Head of Tourism Services for information and any further comments will be reported).

Islandwatch object to application for change of use from holiday accommodation to permanent accommodation as this seems to an a clear attempt to circumvent Council policies as set out in the UDP. Approval would set a damaging precedent.

Evaluation

The application now under consideration is for change of use of the previously approved holiday accommodation to form a permanent unit of residential accommodation. No specific garden/curtilage area is identified in the submitted plans.

The application falls to be determined under the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan policies outlined earlier in this report and Members will be aware that policies generally support conversion and reuse of rural buildings for business, commercial or tourism purposes, conversion for permanent residential purposes would only be considered as a last resort if no other viable uses for the buildings can be found. In this case, the accommodation has been occupied as a holiday unit for some time and Members may also be aware that planning consent has been granted for conversion of other buildings within the group for tourism purposes in line with current Unitary Development Plan policies.

Whilst I note the information provided by the applicant regarding the viability and long-term management of the holiday unit, I am concerned that the evidence submitted does not comprise a convincing case that the only viable use for this building is for permanent residential occupation. No evidence has been submitted to show that the building has been marketed or that other means of management of the property has been assessed.

Furthermore, the Inspector, in his decision letter determining the appeal referred to above, agreed that "the absence of a distinctive curtilage makes the property unsuitable for independent permanent residential accommodation".

I understand from Isle of Wight Tourism that the type of provision provided by converted rural buildings is in strong demand by visitors and is a part of the rural economy that they would wish to support.

Whilst I appreciate that the requirements of the forthcoming Disability Discrimination Act may require some changes to the management and physical form of such accommodation, I understand that the Act would not require the provision of alterations which are unduly onerous in respect of the viability of small businesses. The actual requirements of the Act and accompanying Codes of Practice appear somewhat complex, but the Guidance Notes do indicate that the owners and managers of businesses are required to make reasonable provision for disabled persons, but this would be carried out in the context of the scale and viability of the business and the type of accommodation provided. I do not consider sufficient information has been provided at this stage to prove that the existing accommodation could not continue to operate as a viable business and I am concerned that approval for the change of use now under consideration could adversely affect the future proposals and viability of the tourism use of the other buildings nearby.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the information submitted does not convincingly demonstrate that the future use of the tourist accommodation would not be viable. I do not therefore consider that the change of use proposed for permanent residential accommodation would be acceptable under the terms of Unitary Development Plan Policies C16 and C17 and that the provision of permanent residential accommodation in this rural area would be contrary to Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and the loss of tourist accommodation would be contrary to Policy T10. I therefore have no alternative but to recommend the application is refused.

       Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

Representations

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval.

Two letters of objection on grounds of increased traffic and possible overlooking. One letter requests that conifers are removed from the site.

Evaluation

This is an irregularly shaped site having boundaries with the Church, the Fire Station, the Cemetery and several residential properties at Walls Road, Crossways and Lane End Road at Bembridge. Access to the site is presently gained via Crossways and a garage court, the site being located behind Housing Association flats fronting part of Crossways. The site is presently occupied by a single bungalow which originally occupied the whole site including those chalet bungalows built to the north west, fronting Lane End Road, in the last few years. Boundaries of the site are fairly dense hedgerows plus trees and fencing.

This application seeks consent to demolish a garage building and the existing dwelling which is constructed of timber and corrugated sheeting and for the erection of three small bungalows with garages, served by a private access drive off the garage court. One dwelling would occupy that area immediately adjoining the garage court and where the present dwelling's garage lies, and two dwellings are shown in the existing curtilage of the dwelling. Although in outline form the siting and access are to be considered at this stage which means that the footprint of dwellings would be set if consent is granted.

In October 2001 planning permission was refused for the demolition of the bungalow and it's replacement with four bungalows with parking and alterations to vehicular access on grounds of over development. This is a revised scheme reducing the numbers to three, a scheme which gives each dwelling a greater amount of amenity space and easing the parking and turning provision.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, density, effect on adjoining properties and space around the buildings.

The reduction in numbers from four to three dwellings allows greater flexibility of the site, a larger amount of space around the buildings and amenity space together with a more appropriate provision of turning facility. Although the land is essentially a backland site, matters of loss of privacy are eased with the revised scheme and bearing in mind only bungalows are proposed, overlooking is unlikely to occur if adequate boundary treatments are put in place and sufficient landscaping is either retained or provided.

Although in outline form siting is to be considered at this stage which sets not only the position of the buildings but also the size of the footprint. Plans indicate each of the dwellings to be 8 metres by nearly 6 metres comprising two bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and living room with the access drive running along the eastern side of the gardens to the flats. With adequate boundary screening loss of privacy is unlikely to occur to any of the properties.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, three small bungalows would provide an additional two dwellings on the site whilst maintaining adequate parking, amenity space and privacy to adjoining properties, consistent with UDP policies D1 and D2.

                       Recommendation         -       Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Lake Parish Council object on grounds of development contrary to policy in respect of open space and playing field, loss of open space where there is already a shortfall, adequate provision of a garden centre, increased traffic and associated pedestrian dangers, introduction of a commercial establishment.

Environmental Health Officer recommends condition regarding boundary fencing.

Sport England objects and quotes its policy:-

"Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan ......"

They point out there has been no replacement or proposed alternative provision of open space and that none of the exceptions to their policy are met.

One petition of 253 signatures objecting on grounds of dangerous access, no need for garden centre.

Five letters of objection from local residents on grounds of development contrary to Policy L4 which seeks to prevent loss of open spaces and that the site is a well established open space having been used for approximately fifty years as a sports field. That the use of a garden centre is not an exceptional circumstance to which Policy L4 relates and that the Island is well served with such outlets. Also objects on grounds of inappropriate use in a residential area, increased traffic including heavy vehicles resulting in noise and pollution, hazard to pedestrians using The Fairway, especially school children. Inadequate access, precedent for the erection of further buildings and associated uses. Impact on the ecological value of the site.

Evaluation

Fairway Park, as Members will recall, is an almost square tract of land about 120 metres by 120 metres located on the west side of The Fairway and bounded by the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Roseway, The Fairway, The Medeway and on its southern side by the footpath linking The Fairway with The Medeway just to the north of the properties in Fairmead Close.

The site is now unused and overgrown, last used as a football ground about eight to ten years ago. It has been the subject of planning applications for alternative uses, more recently in July 1997 an outline application for residential development of 38 dwellings was refused. The reasons for refusal were the significant loss of open space within the Lake Parish which would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area, contrary to the Council's policy to retain such land, the fact that adequate land had been allocated for residential development within the area, inadequate amenity or play space and the fact that the site was not allocated for residential development in the Development Plan. A subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 24 July 1998.

In December 1999 an application for use of the land as a woodland cemetery was refused on grounds that the development would result in a significant loss of open space with potential for a playing field within the Lake Parish and contrary to local and national policy, similar to the previous proposal. In July 2001 an outline application for a tennis and rackets club was also refused. Whilst submitted in outline form the remarkably detailed plans submitted with the application comprehensively detailed the development envisaged. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 21 November 2001.

The various applications and appeals have consistently dismissed development proposals due to the loss of playing field and loss of open space.

The current application seeks consent for the use of this vacant open, but overgrown former football ground as a garden centre.

The layout plan shows the intention to demolish the adjoining residential property situated to the north of the existing vehicular access to enable an approved access to be formed leading to a parking area comprising forty car parking spaces and to a delivery and reception area situated in the south western corner. Immediately adjoining the northern side of the car park it is proposed to erect a reception building having a floor area of approximately 70 square metres, a single storey building constructed and clad in timber having a hipped red tiled roof with a maximum height of 5 metres to its ridge.

The remaining area is shown to be set aside for various displays including slabs, paviours and edging, water butts, stakes, trellis posts, an area set aside for garden furniture, for trees and fruit trees, for climbers, roses, heathers and alpines and to form a pond in the north eastern corner with growing beds located in the north western corner. Plan shows the intention to increase peripheral landscaping, a planting belt around the north, east and west boundaries of some depth but of unspecified species. Security fencing would be erected around the car parking and access area and along the southern boundary with the Fairway to The Medeway footpath.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and matters relating to access and traffic generation and possible effects on adjoining properties.

Site is shown within the Unitary Development Plan as being allocated for open space and Policy L4 which relates to the protection of open spaces, village greens and allotments states:

"Planning applications for development resulting in loss of established, proposed or future public or private open spaces, village greens and allotments will only be approved in exceptional circumstances where:

(a) development for community purposes would be of greater benefit than retaining the open space in allotments and there are no other suitable sites available; and

(b) suitable alternative provision is provided prior to the development taking place."

The application before Members is to develop a garden centre. This is not a development for community purposes which would be of greater benefit than retaining the open space and suitable alternative playing field provision has not been proposed or provided elsewhere. The development is therefore contrary to UDP Policy L4.

Members will recall the history of this site and are reminded that in those applications for residential development, the woodland cemetery and latterly the proposed tennis and rackets club, the successive Inspectors have all found the development contrary to policy and therefore unacceptable and have considered that the determining factors in any development proposal on this site is the resultant loss of open space and the resultant loss of the potential playing field use of the site.

Sport England have consistently opposed the development of this site previously on grounds of the loss of the playing field and it has been established at previous appeals that there is a shortfall of such provision in the Parish. They have continued their opposition by submitting a formal objection to this proposal.

Whilst it is accepted that, as with the woodland cemetery, a garden centre would result in the majority of the site being retained undeveloped and in essence possibly a haven for some wildlife, the loss of the playing field is still of paramount consideration.

In terms of access and highway safety, the proposal involves the removal of an existing dwelling in order to layout an improved access serving a parking area of forty vehicles. This standard of access is not considered inappropriate and no objection is seen to that part of the proposal.

Direct effects on adjoining properties are considered to be limited bearing in mind the nature and scale of the current proposal. The floor area of the retail facility is extremely limited, but it should be remembered that most of the site would be for display and therefore retail. Normal opening hours for garden centre purposes are unlikely to result in noise impacts on adjoining properties.

In summary, whilst the proposal seeks consent for an essentially retail activity, such an activity could be limited to that of a garden centre or the description of goods sold could be limited with the floor area of the building similarly limited. Therefore, it is not felt that an objection on grounds of over-provision of retailing floor space would be a sustainable objection. However, the prime consideration in determining applications for development on this site remains that of the loss of a playing field which is featured in several development proposals on this site in the last few years.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of the site as a garden centre would result in the loss of valuable playing field contrary to Policy L4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and contrary to national planning guidance as contained in PPG17.

       Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Ventnor Town Council raise no objections.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Following consideration of ground stability report which accompanied application, Principal Building Control Surveyor recommended that further sub-surface investigations should be carried out to support the application. Furthermore, he noted that, whilst it was originally intended to dispose of surface water drainage to the Southern Water sewer, submission now suggests that this will be connected to soakaways which are generally not recommended. He also indicates that it is his understanding that further investigations of stability of this area have been undertaken by consultants on behalf of the Council and suggests that this should be clarified with the Coastal Manager.

Following receipt of further information from Engineers acting on behalf of the applicant, including details of further site investigation and foundation design, Principal Building Control Officer is satisfied that sufficient site investigation has been carried out to indicate that site can be safely developed. He advises that Engineer proposes a raft foundation for the property, but the design of this has not been checked at this stage. However, the foundation design will be checked when an application is submitted for Building Regulation approval and it is likely that further site investigation will be necessary at that stage to confirm the design's adequacy. Notwithstanding this advice, he advises that Coastal Manager should be consulted for confirmation that development on site is suitable, as he is likely to have information regarding the stability of this area in recent times. Furthermore, he indicates that installation of a system for re-use of roof water, with the overflow discharging to a soakaway, has been accepted in principle by Coastal Manager and design of such system can be dealt with under Building Control legislation.

Coastal Manager confirms that applicant's engineer has written to him direct regarding question of roof water drainage. In response to this approach, he has indicated that he is anxious to ensure that the possibility of connecting into a surface water drainage system has been thoroughly investigated and questioned whether engineer has contacted the Highways Department to establish the position of the nearest highway drain. Only after this possibility has been definitely ruled out would he consider alternatives. Coastal Manager was subsequently provided with details of a drainage system, which incorporates principles of sustainable urban drainage involving re-use of water within the dwelling. Following further consideration of this matter, I am advised that he considers the arrangements set out by the applicant's engineer to be satisfactory.

National Air Traffic Services raise no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

One letter received signed by four local residents raising the following issues in respect of proposal:

Loss of stone wall which is a feature of general character of area - location of site within Conservation Area is questioned.

Trees and shrubs should be retained. Loss of wall and trees would adversely affect privacy of adjoining property. Furthermore, loss of trees would affect character of the area.

Development could cause ground movement in the area. This matter should be subject of independent professional survey.

Evaluation

Application relates to roughly rectangular area of land located on southern side of Bonchurch Shute. Outline planning permission for dwelling was granted in November 2000 with all matters relating to siting, design and external appearance of the building, the means of access and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. Nevertheless application was accompanied by illustrative plans showing position of dwelling and details of alterations to existing access to the site.

Current application seeks approval of reserved matters for dwelling. Details of alterations to access and position of dwelling within site shown on submitted plans correspond with those shown on plans which accompanied application seeking outline planning permission.

Determining factors in considering application are whether dwelling is of appropriate size, scale and design or would detract from character of locality and amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers, and whether sufficient information has been submitted in respect of ground stability to demonstrate that site can be safely developed in the form submitted so that development will not lead to instability of adjoining sites.

Site is outside settlement of Ventnor as defined by development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is also shown to be outside the Conservation Area for Bonchurch. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

G7 - Development on Unstable Lane.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within a Site.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

Whilst the site is located outside the development envelope for Ventnor, there is an extant outline consent in respect of the site indicating that the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that its development for residential purposes is acceptable in principle.

Site slopes in southerly direction, away from road, with sharp change in level approximately 12 metres back from roadside boundary. Proposed dwelling would be situated on lower level of site, immediately adjacent steep bank and change in level is such that first floor accommodation would be at approximately same level as road. Site is presently somewhat overgrown, with trees of any significance located adjacent roadside boundary of site and to rear of plot. Submitted plans indicate that alterations to access will involve removal of only small shrubs, and trees adjacent roadside boundary and to rear of site will be retained. Alterations to access would also involve demolition of small section of wall either side of existing access and its rebuilding to form a wider splayed access. In addition, in order to comply with requirements of Highway Engineer regarding visibility splays from access, stone wall running along roadside boundary of site would be reduced in height by maximum of approximately 500mm and would be maintained at height of one metre within the required visibility splay.

Application site is located in area characterised by mix of dwelling types constructed of a variety of materials, including natural stone to older long established buildings, together with brick, artificial stone and tile hanging in more modern buildings in locality. Submitted plans indicate that proposed dwelling would be two storeys, constructed in yellow brick with contrasting soldier course feature to sills and head of all windows and a hipped slate roof. Living accommodation of hall, kitchen, living room, en suite bedroom and a balcony on the southern elevation are proposed on the first floor, with two bedrooms, study/bedroom, hall, bathroom and utility room at ground floor. The building will be located some 12 metres back from the highway, lining through with the development on either side. The location of principal windows and the balcony will minimise any impact of privacy or amenity of adjoining occupiers. I am satisfied that, in terms of size, scale, design and material to be used in its construction, proposed dwelling would be compatible with adjacent properties and development of site as proposed would not detract from character of the locality. In particular, it should be noted that outline planning permission was subject to conditions requiring retention of natural stone wall along roadside boundary of site, at a reduced height to comply with Highway Engineer's requirements, and retention of trees within site. Should Members be minded to approve current application, I consider that consent should be subject to similar conditions.

Site is shown on Coastal Landslip Potential Assessment to be predominantly within an area likely to be suitable for development where contemporary ground behaviour does not impose significant constraints on local plan development proposals. In terms of Development Control considerations, the results of a desktop study and walkover survey should be presented with all planning applications, and detailed ground investigations may be needed prior to planning decision if recommended by the preliminary study. Southern most part of site is shown to be within an area which may or may not be suitable for development where there would be a need for investigations and monitoring to determine stability conditions. Plans submitted with application indicate line of ground movement and line of exploratory trench excavated to identify this feature. Line of movement runs across plot on approximately north east to south west line, some six metres south east of rear of proposed dwelling.

In accordance with the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, development on land which is known or suspected to be unstable or potentially unstable will need to take account of the potential hazard that such instability could create both to the development itself and to the neighbouring area. It is the responsibility of the developer to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that any instability has been taken into account, and the Authority will use its best endeavours to ensure safe development and cannot be held liable in the event that movement occurs and the property sustains any damage or development causes instability to adjacent sites. In case of current submission, I am satisfied that sufficient evidence has now been submitted in respect of ground stability and that applicant has complied with requirements of PPG14.

One area of concern raised by the Coastal Manager related to disposal of surface water from the development. He initially expressed the preference for this to be disposed of to a storm water drain if this was possible. In this respect, applicants engineer indicated that nearest highway drain is about sixty metres away from the site, on opposite side of Bonchurch Shute. I am advised that, whilst Highways Department would allow a connection for surface water from the new house, it is not possible to connect the drainage to the system by gravity. Applicants engineer expresses opinion that use of a pump for surface water is not a sustainable option and, apart from the future energy use, there is a serious question over reliability. He advises that surface water pumps tend to be unused for long periods during the summer months and consequently deteriorate and fail to operate when required. This can be remedied by regular operation but requires positive action on the part of the owner and is often neglected. As an alternative, he is recommending use of a drainage system which incorporates the principles of sustainable urban drainage by reusing water within the dwelling, for example, in the flushing of toilets. Overflow from a storage facility would be disposed of to a soakaway. Applicants engineer has provided detailed calculations in this respect and I am advised by the Coastal Manager that use of such a system would be acceptable in this instance.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that proposed dwelling is of an appropriate size, scale and design, compatible with it's surroundings, and will not detract from character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring residential properties. Furthermore, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted to assess the proposal in terms of ground stability and that the requirements of PPG14 have been satisfied.

1.           Recommendation        -       Approval   

Conditions/Reasons:

2.            Recommendation         -       A letter be sent to applicant strongly advising that all excavation and foundation works are inspected very carefully and such inspection shall be carried out by an appropriate competent qualified Engineer (preferably the Engineer who carried out the submitted Ground Stability Report) in order to ensure full compliance takes place with regard to the submitted Ground Stability Appraisal which forms part of this consent.

This application would have been processed by the delegation system but is before the Committee at the local Member's request.

Representations

Shanklin Town Council recommend approval.

Highway Engineers consider there to be no implications.

Isle of Wight Joint Registration and Inspection Unit confirm that they have had discussions with the operator and confirms that the operator needs to meet all requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

Three letters of objection from adjoining property owners expressing the opinion that the proposal will adversely affect their property due to loss of privacy and light in their bathroom which is situated on the southern side of the property facing the extension; loss of privacy and light to the garden due to overlooking from the first floor windows, and loss of light due to the height of the roof; possible extra noise nuisance stating that noise has been experienced previously from residents and that increased accommodation could increase the amount of noise and disturbance to their property. One objector continues that the extension is too large and too high for this location and it will overshadow neighbouring gardens; requests a site inspection by the Committee so that the full effects could be realised and suggests that the increased numbers of visitors to the Nursing Home due to the increased capacity will impact on the vehicular access which is at the brow of a busy main road - Arthurs Hill.

Evaluation

Springfield is located on the western side of Arthurs Hill directly opposite it's junction with Clarence Gardens. It is an existing, two/three storey red brick pitched roofed building with decorative stone quoins but in a comparatively long and narrow complex shape contained within a walled garden. The property has been used for many years as a Nursing Home and extensions were constructed on the western side, extensions of two storeys in height and in materials and a style to match the existing. The centre section of the building is essentially single storey but also with a pitched and slated roof.

The building is located in a low density area primarily of residential use, most of the properties fronting Arthurs Hill, Clarence Road and Wilton Park Road, but on the northern side, behind four properties fronting Wilton Park Road is a single bungalow accessed off Wilton Park Road, immediately north of the site of the proposed extension. This dwelling has a single window in it's southern elevation which appears to be a bathroom as it is obscured glazed.

Plans show the intention to construct two storey extension at the rear (west); constructed in brick with artificial stone quoins to match the existing under a hipped, slate roof. All materials are proposed to match the existing. Plans show ground floor to comprise a sitting room and five bedrooms and the disabled w.c. and boiler room with a stairwell on the northern side leading to the first floor where a further five bedrooms are proposed. Ground and first floor links to the existing building will dictate finished floor levels.

The southern elevation shows there to be three pairs of patio doors to the ground floor bedrooms to three bedrooms above whilst on the northern elevation, shows a similar pattern but with only two bedrooms on that side. Glazing to the stairwell is included at the west elevation which also contains windows to the corridors on both ground and first floors. The sitting room on the southern elevation also contains windows on ground floor. Due to the ground and first floor levels being fixed by the necessary connection to those included in the existing building, the site requires some considerable excavation, between 0.46 metre to 1.12 metres. On the northern side the ground level is excavated to a difference of approximately 0.56 metre to 1.01 metres. The extension projects approximately 20 metres from the rear of the existing building and has a maximum width of approximately 13 metres.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, degree of site coverage and space left around the buildings, matters relating to access and parking and effect on adjoining properties.

In terms of policy and principle the Nursing Home is long established and an extension to it to provide additional accommodation is consistent with policies. There is therefore no principle objection.

The building is almost centrally sited and there is substantial space left around it and between adjoining buildings that immediately adjoin on the northern side. A dimension of 6.72 metres is shown between the proposed extension and the northern boundary, the boundary with the property most affected. In terms of site coverage I do not consider the resultant development would comprise over development, especially bearing in mind the use of the premises as a Nursing Home, extensive areas of amenity space are not required.

The whole of the frontage of the site had already been set aside for vehicular parking and there is an existing vehicular access, which although is not ideally placed, has been in existence for some years serving the premises. The Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications in the proposal.

Turning finally to the effect on the adjoining property, the property likely to be affected is the bungalow situated directly north. This is close to the northern boundary of the site which, in turn, is as stated previously, 6.72 metres from the extension. Other properties are about 40+ metres away.

Due to the existence of the boundary wall and the reduced ground levels and the fact that the proposed extension is on the southern side of the property in question, it is unlikely that the property to the north will be overshadowed as the sun is at it's highest in the south and the height of the building is not so great as to cast that much shadow. Overlooking from first floor windows is a possibility as those first floor windows would be in excess of the height of the common boundary wall. However, I have suggested a condition requiring the bottom half of the windows to be obscured glazed with only the top half opening to ensure that privacy is maintained. I do not consider the objections raised are of sufficient weight to warrant refusing this proposal.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the extension to this existing Nursing Home to provide extra accommodation is felt to be appropriate in terms of siting, massing and effect on adjoining properties to result in development consistent with Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

               Recommendation         -       Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council object to application as it is felt that a three storey building is too high and would be out of keeping with neighbouring buildings and with the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Parish Council recommend a site meeting take place and that, in accordance with the recent concordat a Member of the Parish Council be invited to attend the site meeting and address the Committee. This latter issue has been clarified in writing with the Parish Council.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

The National Trust, who own much of the adjoining downland and coastline which is situated within the Isle of Wight AONB and part of the Tennyson Heritage Coast object to application. They consider that size of extension is considerably higher than the existing building that it would replace and that it would have a negative domineering effect on the locality of Freshwater Bay and would not fit in with the existing building at The Albion Hotel. They consider that the proposed height of the new extension would have a detrimental effect on a nationally important and much photographed landscape, particularly when viewed from the east.

Islandwatch object to application on grounds that extension is taller than the pub to which it is attached and far taller than the extension it replaces. They consider that it will be grossly oversized in what is a sensitive location and that it should be a single storey extension only.

Two letters received from local residents and one from Freshwater Bay Residents Association objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Extension would be intrusive, intruding into view of Stag Rock from Gate Lane. This view is not obscured by present single storey element.

Hotel entrance would be situated on a dangerous bend. Existing line of site on section of road is bad and proposal would aggravate safety of both adults and children and would lead to serious accidents.

Submitted drawings do not include dimensions and it is not possible to define increase in height of building or relate it accurately with the surrounding area.

Anticipated increase in height does not blend with surrounding area and creates an eyesore. It is felt that a two storey extension with larger footprint would achieve similar increase in bedroom capacity and would spread the imposed load over a greater area and reduce the problems with the remaining building foundations.

Advantage gained by installation of a footpath is reduced by proximity of proposed new drive-in.

No proposals for external finishes are given and submission does not represent a complete picture for assessment.

Evaluation

Application relates to The Albion Hotel situated on western side of Freshwater Bay. Building is prominent within and dominates the Bay. Section of hotel facing east is a combination of two storey and single storey buildings with pitched roof and with element immediately adjoining Gate Lane having a flat roof. In contrast, the southern/western section of the building is of more modern appearance and construction, three storeys in height on seaward side and single/two storey in height facing car park, all under a flat roof.

Planning permission was granted in April 1998 for alterations, extensions and refurbishment of hotel to provide accommodation including forty seven additional bedrooms, reception area, foyer, indoor swimming pool, additional first and second floor extensions under pitched roofs and raised tower. Proposal also included demolition of single storey cafe, new single storey replacement cafe, resurfacing and seasonal use of car park area as open air cafe and formation of footpath and alterations to car park access. Proposal involved significant additions to building, effectively increasing its height by an additional storey, with the exception of the cafe element adjacent Gate Lane which remained single storey in height. Because of the sensitive nature of the area and the desire to ensure that if the development took place, it did so fairly quickly, a three year time limit on the consent was imposed, thus this permission has now expired.

Current application seeks planning permission for demolition of single and two storey elements at northern end of hotel and construction of three storey extension to provide fifteen additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities, new entrance foyer and associated office accommodation and alterations to existing bedrooms.

Site is located outside settlement of Freshwater as defined by development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. In addition, site is shown to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast and a wild bird sanctuary. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 -  The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S6 -  All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S10 -   In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only it if 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.

G5 -   Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 -    Standards of Design.

D2 -    Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

T3 -    Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation.

C1 -    Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 -    Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C4 -   Heritage Coast.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

It is recognised that the tourist industry contributes significantly to the economy of the Island and the Council would wish to support appropriate proposals for tourist accommodation and facilities. In particular, in accordance with Policy T1 of the Unitary Development Plan, proposals which promote and support tourism and/or seek to extend the tourist season will be acceptable in principle, provided they minimise any detrimental or adverse impact. The Albion Hotel is one of the largest hotels in the West Wight and is considered to be an important asset to the tourism industry. Therefore, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to an extension to the building, particularly where this would facilitate or lead to further upgrading of the existing accommodation. However, having regard to the prominent position occupied by the building, the design of any extension needs to be of the highest standard and its scale must relate well to the existing building and surrounding area.

Proposed extension would replace single storey element located immediately adjacent Gate Lane frontage. Extension would occupy prominent position and would be visually intrusive, particularly when viewed from eastern side of bay and when approaching site along Gate Lane from the west. Whilst it is accepted that planning permission has previously been granted for substantial additions which would result in a building of significant mass, this formed part of a comprehensive scheme having continuity and which maintained the general theme of the present building, reducing in the number of storeys from the southern end of the site to the north, and maintaining a single storey element adjacent Gate Lane. In contrast, I consider that the design, scale and mass of the current proposal is unrelated to the character and appearance of the original building and would result in a dominant feature which would be visually intrusive. Furthermore, the north elevation of the proposed extension, facing onto Gate Lane, is considered to be bland and unacceptable, containing only entrance doors and portico with window either side. Upper elevations lack and fenestration.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, the proposed extension is considered to be of inappropriate size, scale and design, out of keeping with the original building, and would be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality, which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

               Recommendation         -       Refusal      

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued.

Highway Engineer recommends condition should application be approved.

Assistant Ecology Officer has visited the site and advises that there is evidence of badgers (tracks made by regular use) at the north east corner immediately adjacent to St Boniface Down and on the area immediately to the west, both of which are outside the development site. Footprints were also seen on a patch of mud on the courts. She advises that there is known to be a badger set on St Boniface Down, and the grassed area, part of which is to be surfaced as a car park, would provide a feeding area in damp weather. However, she advises that foraging areas for badgers are not protected by Law. She also found no specific evidence of foxes. I am advised by her that badgers do not usually leave their setts until after dusk and the use of floodlighting, and associated use of the courts, is likely to deter badgers and foxes while it is in use and the animals will adjust their behaviour and not use the area for foraging until the activity and light levels are reduced. Therefore, she considers that the use of the floodlights could be conditioned to restrict their use to times when the courts are actually in use, and not after 9 or 10 pm to lessen their impact. As far as other animals are concerned, the use of lights is likely to attract greater numbers of flying insects to the area and provide a better feeding area for bats.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer advises that he has no adverse comment to make in respect of application but would request that the operating times of the lighting are restricted to 9:30 pm each day.

National Air Traffic Services Limited have examined proposal from a technical safeguarding aspect and advise that it does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria.

Three letters received from local residents objecting principally to provision of floodlighting for reasons which can be summarised as follows:

Intrusive impact on highly sensitive edge of town location at present free from any kind of light pollution.

Site immediately adjoins St Boniface Downs, owned by National Trust, which provides unique backdrop to Ventnor, rich in flora and fauna and which is traversed by public footpaths.

Downs are designated as a candidate for Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and floodlights would have adverse effect on this area.

Light spillage would have significant impact on night sky.

Provision of lighting would cause disturbance to adjoining occupiers. Concern is expressed regarding level of light spillage on to adjacent properties and need for time limit is questioned.

Proposal may detract from enjoyment of guests staying at adjacent hotel.

Provision of lighting may facilitate use of tennis courts later in evening disturbing adjoining occupiers.

One objector also raises issue that parking area would reduce grassed area at front of site used by youngsters for recreational purposes, in area where such facilities are at a premium.

Evaluation

Application relates to Ventnor Tennis Club premises located on northern side and at western end of St Boniface Road. Site is presently laid out with grass recreation area in south western corner of site, one tennis court in south eastern corner of site and three tennis courts and pavilion across rear of site. Existing tennis courts are finished in tarmac surface and enclosed by chain link fencing with height of between 2.5 and 3 metres.

Current application seeks planning permission for upgrading of facility to include resurfacing of the tennis courts with porous bitumen macadam playing surface coated with coloured acrylic, new weld mesh fencing with height of 2.75 metres around Court 2, in north east corner of site, and around Courts 3 and 4 in north west corner of site. In addition, proposal includes provision of floodlights to Courts 3 and 4 and creation of vehicular access to St Boniface Road and parking area for twelve vehicles on part of grass recreation area at front of site. Floodlighting to Courts 3 and 4 would involve erection of four columns, each 10 metres in height supporting three 1,000 watt lamps.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal, and in particular provision of floodlighting to Courts 3 and 4, would detract from character of locality, particularly having regard to designation of adjoining Downs as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Other factors considered relevant to determination of application include affect of floodlighting on ecologically sensitive areas adjacent the site and highway issues associated with provision of vehicular access and parking area.

Site is within settlement of Ventnor as defined by development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is adjacent an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. At its closest point, site is within approximately 40 metres of boundary with Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) on St Boniface Down. Proposed car park for twelve vehicles would occupy part of area identified as an open space on the UDP. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S10 - In areas of designated or defined Scientific, Nature Conservation, Archaeological or Landscape Value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D14 - Light Spillage.

L2 -Formal Recreation Provision.

L4 - Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments.

Element of application which has attracted greatest concern relates to provision of floodlighting to courts 3 and 4. In accordance with Policy D14 of the Unitary Development Plan considered to be particularly relevant to this aspect of the proposal, applications for development including or requiring external lighting will be expected to satisfy the criteria set out in the policy. In particular, these require that the lighting scheme proposed is the minimum required for the task, light spillage is minimised, particularly skyward, on the edge of settlements or in the countryside, the lighting is screened from view from neighbouring countryside and that it is designed so as not to unreasonably affect neighbouring properties. Original specification for lighting involved erection of lighting columns with height of 12.2 metres incorporating shielding to reduce level of light spillage. These were subsequently reduced in height and application seeks consent for 10 metre columns. In addition, following negotiations with applicant's agent and prospective supplier of floodlighting, proposal has been further modified to incorporate what is referred to as a total light control system. The literature provided by the suppliers indicates that this system controls up to 95% of spill and glare light, whilst still achieving required light levels and providing efficient, uniform light on the playing area. Furthermore, it is understood that lighting system has been designed to give an average lighting level of 500 lux on the playing surface in order to meet the requirements of the Lawn Tennis Association. Therefore, I am satisfied that the lighting scheme is not excessive for the purpose it is required and accords with Policy D14 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The hotel premises immediately to rear of and abutting application site is potentially the most affected by the proposed floodlighting. However, contour lines on Ordnance Survey maps confirm that garden area to that property is approximately 10-12 metres above tennis courts, sloping down quite steeply to boundary with application site. Having regard to the changes in level and the measures to be incorporated in the lighting system to limit light spillage, I am satisfied that proposal will not have adverse effect. Furthermore, I am advised by suppliers of lighting that the light spillage control measures are designed to focus the lights on the tennis courts and reduce the vertical spillage to a minimum. Having regard to these factors and location of site within street lit area, I am satisfied that proposal will not adversely affect character and amenities of locality.

At present, facility does not benefit from any off street parking and proposal includes provision of vehicular access and parking for twelve vehicles on part of grassed area to front of site. Area to be occupied by parking forms part of larger area designated as open space. However, parking spaces would occupy relatively small proportion of this part of site and I do not consider that it would be prejudicial to the character of the area. Furthermore, I am satisfied that having regard to size and nature of the facility, the level of parking to be provided is not excessive. Highway Engineer is happy with provision of access and parking and recommended condition should application be approved.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal will improve overall appearance of site and will not have adverse effect on character and amenities of locality. In particular, I consider that provision of floodlighting as proposed is acceptable, subject to provision of appropriate measures to restrict light spillage and will not adversely affect character of locality, ecologically sensitive areas adjacent site or amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

       Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Gurnard Parish Council has no objection.

Letters from two nearby residents in Rew Street submitted with the application indicating no objection to plans. One correspondent indicates delight to see the removal and subsequent replacement of the existing structure on the site.

Evaluation

Application site currently occupied by a detached flat roofed building constructed from horizontal timber boarding painted brown. Concrete block base to walls. Building presently unoccupied although there is clearly a domestic curtilage cultivated as garden. There is no direct vehicular access from the road to the site in question. Pedestrian access is shared with the adjoining property to the north.

To the south of site are Dukes Farm buildings whilst to north is the ribbon of residential development on the west side of Rew Street.

Research has been undertaken to confirm occupation of the building on the site as an independent dwelling and Property Tax Section has confirmed that the property was occupied as an independent residential unit up until 31 March 2001. Property comprises a sitting room, kitchen, hall and two bedrooms with a small lean-to building at the eastern end providing third bedroom with other extensions providing utility room, shower room and store. Proposed replacement dwelling would be an L-shaped bungalow with lounge, dining room, kitchen, utility room, study, two bedrooms and bathroom. An internal staircase would lead to an attic room. Although still occupying part of the site of the existing property, proposed dwelling would be moved north and east, to take advantage of the widest part of the site.

Site is outside development envelope defined in the UDP. It also has a poor relationship with existing properties and no vehicular access from the public highway. Development of such sites would normally be resisted but in this case, it is established that there is already a dwelling on the site albeit in a poor state of repair. UDP policy H9 does allow for residential development outside development envelopes where the proposal is to replace an existing dwelling. This exception is however qualified by the requirement for the replacement to be of a similar scale and mass to the dwelling it replaces.

Main indicators of scale and mass are floor area and volume. Existing property has floor area of 68 sq metres and volume of about 190 cubic metres. Proposed dwelling is approximately 110 sq metres floor area and 409 cubic metres volume. Some of the increase in volume is accounted for by the provision of a pitched roof, rather than the flat roof on the existing dwelling and this is felt acceptable in order to provide a satisfactory design. However, notwithstanding this provision, proposal will increase the volume of the existing dwelling by almost four times and the footprint by some 61% leading to a substantial dwelling which is felt wholly inappropriate for this relatively small site in a backland position. Existing dwelling is small and compact with an appearance similar to that of a domestic summer house, therefore having minimal impact on neighbours. Bungalow as proposed is substantially larger than the existing property and it is anticipated to have a detrimental effect on occupiers of the adjoining properties because of this increase in size, contrary to Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the report, I am of the opinion that the proposal conflicts with policies H9 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

                       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Parish Council recommend refusal and comment that although the proposed extension is slightly smaller than that which was previously refused the same reasons still apply as the proposed extension would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings and have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality, and the proposed extension by reason of it's height and prominent location would be incongruous within the street scene, and contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Letter received from local Member objecting to application on grounds of visual intrusion and commenting that although the proposed extension has been somewhat reduced, it does not differ greatly from the previously refused plans and because of it's size and appearance the extension would be visually intrusive seen from the beach and the road. Sand Cove is one part of a pair of cottages and the buildings in the immediate vicinity are older properties with some historical significance in Bembridge. The modern extension could appear incongruous to the detriment of the character of the area.

Letter received from occupier of adjoining property referring to revised plans showing the size of the extension to be reduced and moved further away from the joint boundary fence, and commenting that they are satisfied with these plans.

Two further letters received from local residents supporting the application and indicating that the size, scale and design of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the cottage style of the property.

One local resident questions the ownership of the land which claims to be private property.

Evaluation

This application relates to one of a pair of semi-detached cottages situated on the western side of Beach Lane which is a narrow unmade track leading on to the shore at Bembridge Point, some 100 metres north of the junction of Beach Lane with Pump Lane, Kings Road and the Embankment Road.

The application property is the northern most house of a pair of semi-detached chalet style buildings constructed of red brick, and has a substantial garden area to the northern side abutting the beach.

The existing building has a single storey extension on the eastern frontage which is a low profiled structure under a shallow pitched roof and although this is in poor condition, it is relatively inconspicuous in the street scene.

The proposed extension involves the demolition of the existing single storey structure and construction of a two storey extension in a similar location. The extension would comprise dining room accommodation together with an entrance porch and shower room/utility area at ground floor level, with a bedroom and en-suite bathroom at first floor level which would be

contained within the sloping roof. The proposals also include construction of a projecting bay window with a balcony above on the northern elevation of the new extension, together with a similar balcony above the existing bay window on the main property.

Members are advised that a previous application for a larger two storey extension in a similar location was refused planning permission in June 2001 as the proposed extension by reason of it's position, size and appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings, as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality, and the height and prominent location of the extension would be incongruous within the street scene and, therefore, contrary to Policies D1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The refused plans were the subject of an appeal which was dismissed in November 2001 and the Appeal Inspector commented that the form of the proposed extension and link to the existing dwelling achieves the objective of avoiding the bulk of a large gable or hipped roof extending out at right angles from the existing ridge. However, because of it's size it fails to respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling and the proposed gable end facing the beach would be almost as wide and the ridge height almost as high as the original building. The Inspector therefore considered the extension would fail to be subservient to the existing house and would change the character of the building from a modest seaside house to a much more substantial dwelling. When seen from the beach the house would appear to have virtually doubled in size, and it's relationship with the landscape setting would be altered for the worse.

The plans now under consideration have been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous reasons for refusal of the former application. The overall size of the extension has been reduced and the design simplified to reduce it's dominant effect.

The revised plans now under consideration show an extension with overall dimensions of 6.5 metres by 6 metres with an additional projecting bay window on the northern elevation. The first floor element has been reduced and would be contained within a hipped shaped roof thereby completely omitting the gables on the previously refused extension. The extension would now be approximately 2.5 metres away from the shared boundary with the property to the south and would have an overall height of approximately 5.2 metres, which is some 1.4 metres below the main ridge of the property. In addition, the simplified design avoids the visual conflict of the second gable and results in an extension which is visually subservient to the main dwelling.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the extension would still be relatively prominent in the locality as it is situated between the main dwelling and Beach Lane, it has been set back from the northern frontage to the beach and would replace the former extension which is in very poor condition.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, and acknowledging the concerns expressed by the Parish Council and local Member, I am of the opinion that the revised plans now under consideration show a significant reduction in the overall scale, mass and height of the proposed extension and a simplified design with the first floor accommodation contained within a hipped tiled roof which has substantially overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application, and would result in an extension which is visually subservient to the main dwelling and not unduly intrusive within the landscape context which were concerns identified by the Appeal Inspector. The revised plans are therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with UDP policies D1 and H7 and I recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Approval (Revised Plans)  

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Shanklin Town Council object to both the culvert and the new drive and turning area.

Town Council Members understand that the Environment Agency are unhappy with the proposed stream culvert and support that point of view and oppose the driveway on the grounds that its entrance onto the road has poor visibility and is therefore hazardous.

Environment Agency confirm that they have no objection in principle to proposal provided that the access is to be used for vehicular access, but state that if the access is to be used solely for pedestrian access, the Agency would wish to see a culverted section of reduced length sufficient merely to carry a path across the stream; would prefer to see the use of a clear-span bridge to carry the access across the watercourse as they have less negative impact than culverts on watercourses, their banks and resident wildlife. Also point out that prior written approval of the Agency is required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act if there is an intention to fill, divert or culvert the watercourse. Consultation goes on to advise that the Agency has environmental obligations and presumption against the culverting of watercourses and would not normally consent to such works.

Council's Drainage Engineer points out that, in his view, nothing has changed since the previous authorisation to commence enforcement action; that prior approval under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 is required from the Environment Agency and that they would not normally consent to such works; that bridges are better than culverts; that a danger of precedent is set by accepting such unacceptable works recommending that the culverts should be removed.

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of destabilisation of the ground adjacent and adverse effect on wildlife, including red squirrel, dormouse and badger and adverse effect on the character of the area.

Evaluation

In May 2001 planning permission was granted to a revised design of the dwelling located at this site. Originally the application included the formation of a culvert to the stream which had been commenced, but due to its controversial nature, the application was amended to exclude the culvert and to deal with the revised design of the bungalow alone.

In October 2001 an application for the retention of the culvert was refused and enforcement action authorised to secure the removal of the culvert within a period of three months.

This current application seeks consent again for the retention of the culvert, but also adds the provision of an access driveway and turning area, the latter being situated astride the culvert. Details of the drive, parking and turning area show there to be a maximum gradient of 1:6 achieved by "cut and fill" with a surfaced driveway of about 3 metres in width supported on transverse concrete beam foundations at approximately 3 metres centres along the full 45 metre length of the access drive. A steel barrier supported on steel posts bolted to the edge beam marks the western edge of the drive. The surface treatment has not been specified.

This application, in essence, seeks again to justify and achieve the retention of the culverting works already undertaken and differs only from the previous attempts by the inclusion of a form of vehicular access over the culvert.

In order to remind Members of Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act, it states:

"No person shall;

(a) erect any mill, dam, wheel or other obstruction to the flow of any ordinary watercourse or raise or otherwise alter any such obstruction;

(b) erect any culvert that would be likely to affect the flow of any ordinary watercourse or alter any culvert in a manner that would be likely to affect any such flow;

without the consent in writing of the Drainage Board concerned."

Environment Agency policy document states:

"The Agency is in general opposed to the culverting of watercourses because of the adverse ecological, flood defence and other effects that are likely to arise. The Agency will therefore only approve an application to culvert a watercourse if there is no reasonably practicable alternative or if the detrimental effects of culverting would be so minor that they would not justify a more costly alternative. In all cases where it is appropriate to do so, adequate mitigation must be provided for damage caused. Wherever practical, the Agency will seek to have culverted watercourses restored to open channels."

The usual instance of culvert being appropriate form of engineering operation is to form a vehicular access across a stream or river where no other means of access would be practicable. In the instance the development of the dwelling ensuing on this site, only pedestrian access was required in order to allow the occupant of the new dwelling to access their parking space located in Priory Road. This application, in my opinion, includes the new driveway, parking and turning area merely to justify the existence and retention of the unauthorised culvert. The dwelling, which is almost complete, was approved for pedestrian only access from Church Road with the provision of car parking space and turning area off Priory Road; there is clearly no necessity for the drive and access across the stream except for pedestrian only access which could have been provided by way of a small bridge. It therefore appears that the parking and turning area has been provided in an attempt to justify the retention of the culvert. I do not consider vehicular access as proposed to be necessary nor desirable and remain of the opinion that the culvert should be removed in accordance with the Council's resolution regarding enforcement action taken in October 2001.

The Enforcement Notice has been served, it becomes effective on 8 April 2002 with a period for compliance of three months. I see no reason to deviate from that course of action.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as detailed in the Evaluation section above, the formation of the driveway will have a significant and sustained adverse effect on the trees in the vicinity and an adverse visual impact; the introduction of a parking and turning area will have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of this part of the Shanklin Chine and the retention of this length of culvert is considered to be an inappropriate and unjustifiable restriction on natural drainage and water flow and therefore contrary to Policy G6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

1.        Recommendation     -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

2.     Recommendation     -      Continue the Enforcement Action.

This application was to be determined via the delegation system but is before the Committee at the local Members request.

Representations

Godshill Parish Council state that they would not normally entertain a planning application for this site a Conservation Area, but in the interests of retaining the local shop combined with the Post Office, conditionally support the proposal. They state that the ownership of the bungalow should be linked with the shop and a conditional approval could link the two, condition that building materials used are sympathetic, but state that if such a condition could not be imposed, they would not support the development.

Evaluation

This is a triangular shaped site fronting High Street at Godshill on the bend directly opposite the Old World Tea Garden and Essex Cottage just to the south of the Post Office. The site has a maximum depth of 21 metres with a frontage comprising a natural stone wall onto the High Street of approximately 26 metres in length. North of the site is the applicant's remaining land comprising two storey detached building incorporating a shop with Post Office on the ground floor with living accommodation over, whilst to the east is a public house and beer gardens and parking area comprising two storey public house and restaurant building with additional site buildings of single storeys in height. Opposite site are detached two storey stone and thatched and slated buildings with some painted natural stone. The site is central in the village scene.

In front of the site there is a grass verge separating the footpath from the highway containing public benches. The curved stone front boundary wall of the site is approximately 1-1.2 metres high and has been the subject of a Civic Trust Award with the display of the usual plaque on the wall. Behind the wall there is a conifer and shrub boundary, a thick and effective screen to an otherwise grassed garden area to the Post Office and its residential accommodation.

This application seeks full consent for a bungalow. Details show the building to be approximately 11.5 metres by 7.2 metres comprising kitchen, lounge/dining area, two bedrooms and a bathroom and WC constructed in brickwork under a slate roof, both to the approval of the Local Planning Authority incorporating white UPVC double glazed windows and a pedestrian access only to its front door. The building is shown to be sited close to the front boundary of the site between 1.6 and 3.2 metres and in such a position that the rear corners are shown as being approximately one metre from each of the side boundaries.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, design and impact in the street bearing in mind the area's status as a Conservation Area.

In principle, a residential development in this area is not contrary to policy since the Village Centre is of mixed uses including residential and commercial and therefore the main determining factors are the design of the building, its mass and the resultant impact and effect on this part of the Conservation Area. In my view, the design of the building is inappropriate, a bungalow would be wrong in terms of its shape and proportions since most of the primary buildings in the locality are at least two storeys in height.

The building by necessity is sited well forward on the site within a metre or so of the front boundary wall and although it is argued that the site is well screened by hedgerow and trees to a height of approximately 2 metres, much of this growth would need to be removed to construct the building or to make it satisfactory as accommodation, since such close proximity of dense natural growth would diminish light levels to an unacceptable degree. Accordingly it would be inappropriate to condition the retention of the hedgerow and its removal would reveal the appearance of the bungalow at this prominent location.

I would not rule out that an appropriately designed cottage style but two storey dwelling could be built on this site. I do not consider a single storey modern bungalow such as that proposed would be appropriate. Any dwelling constructed on this site could share access and parking with the existing dwelling negating the need to form a further vehicular access to the site.

Whilst in some cases the occupation of a dwelling could be linked by condition to that in connection with another building or adjoining use, I do not consider that such a condition would be necessary in this instance and that, even if it was considered appropriate, the imposition of such a condition would not affect the appearance of the building which would remain as an inappropriate design in the Conservation Area.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, it is felt that the proposal to erect a modern bungalow in a Conservation Area in this location is one of the most prominent sites in the area would be an inappropriate form of development. The proposal would represent an inappropriate addition to the street scene in a Conservation Area in terms of its design, scale and proportions and would therefore be contrary to Policies D1 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and PPG15.

       Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

East Cowes Town Council comment as follows:

"The East Cowes Planning Committee objects to the development on the grounds of the environmental impact of houses being built close to a power station and contaminated land. The Council is further concerned that East Cowes does not have the infrastructure to cope with more housing development."

Although written comments of the Highway Engineer have not been received, proposal has been fully discussed with the outcome that he wishes any access to these units to be taken to the southern boundary and provision be made for turning or refuse vehicles etc both in terms of plots 1-9 and plots 10-14 inclusive.

Health and Safety Executive has been consulted and sees no reason on major hazard grounds for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Application has been subject of five letters of objection all from residents of Kingslea Park Estate with points raised being summarised as follows:

Proposal to extend what is an existing cul-de-sac through to the southern boundary will alter the character of the road creating an unacceptable additional level of traffic to the detriment of the existing residents on this road who understood it would always be a cul-de-sac.

Concern that the general shared surface road construction will suffer extensive damage from construction traffic and because of inadequacies in width, even result in encroachment onto private garden areas.

Concern that the inadequacies of the carriageway width to accept additional traffic, particularly on a two way basis.

Noise and disturbance from construction traffic.

Overall access to this site via Cadets Walk is inadequate already without expecting additional development to be served off it.

Extension of this road to both serve additional development and eventually create a second access to this site to and from the south would make it unacceptably close to the play area which has been set aside for this site.

Developer has failed to complete all aspects of the existing development and should not be allowed to create additional development under the completion of the previous phases with particular reference to landscaping and the laying out of the play area.

Council's Fire Safety Officer makes reference to the need to provide adequate emergency vehicle turning facility and in this regard he suggests increasing Hammer Head facilities.

Evaluation

Application relates to an almost rectangular shaped area of land at the southern extremity of the Kingslea Park Estate located directly to the south of Nos. 18-21 and No. 30 Kingslea Park. The site has recently been the subject of site clearance and is bounded by chain link fencing on all its sides. Site has a slight fall from east to west.

The Kingslea Park Development consists of approximately 67 units in total in a mixture of semi-detached and detached with some elements of terrace. Immediately adjoining in part between property No. 22 Kingslea Park and the northern boundary is a small area which remains undeveloped and is the area to be set aside as a play area for this site. The application site itself is surrounded on its southern and western side by land which is generally overgrown and undeveloped. Further to the west is the former Cowes power station which, Members will be aware, is accessed off Kingston Road.

Consent is sought for further development of this site which will result in the extension of two of the existing shared cul-de-sac carriageways, one in the western half of the site which is in the form of an existing cul-de-sac to be extended eventually through to the southern boundary with provision of a further turning space within the proposed development site. This access road which is directly to the west of the play area and currently serves approximately nine units plus the proposed play area is to be extended in the form of a 4.8 metre wide carriageway with 2 metre wide service strip on its western side. Proposal is to provide three pairs of semi-detached houses (total of six)plus a terrace of three all providing three bedroom accommodation and to be constructed in facing brick under concrete tiled roofs. Given this extended access road, provision has been made for a total of fourteen car parking spaces, twelve of which are at right angles to the proposed road. All units are to be provided with small garden areas to the rear.

Remaining element of the proposal is an extension of further existing cul-de-sac access road within the south eastern area of the site which currently has development on its eastern side and this proposal would complete the development on its western side by a further five units with two pairs of semi-detached plus three terrace. Proposal provides for an additional eight parking spaces plus a turning area at the southern end of that cul-de-sac. In this case the cul-de-sac will remain a cul-de-sac and it has not been indicated to link eventually through to the land to the south.

Applicants have indicated that foul drainage will be by way of a proposed private pump sewer serving all fourteen units to link to an existing gravity sewer within the eastern carriageway serving the five units as previously described. Proposal does provide some landscaping which significantly indicates the extension of the tree planting screen adjacent the western boundary and a further screen of tree planting along the southern boundary.

In planning policy terms, this land represents the remaining element of residentially allocated land which forms the Kingslea Park Estate as indicated on the Unitary Development Plan.

Material considerations relate to the following:

Density of development and arrangement of dwellings in relation to the existing theme of development on the site.

General arrangement of dwellings.

Implications of extending the road through the southern boundary.

With regard to the density of development, this calculates at approximately 51 units per hectare which, Members will note, virtually complies with the advice contained in PPG3 requiring developments be in the region of 32.0 units per hectare. Whilst this represents a slight increase on the general theme of density on the remaining area of Kingslea Park, I do not consider it is excessive and makes efficient use of this final part of the Kingslea Park development. Garden areas are relatively small, but in those cases are not dissimilar to some of the existing plot sizes on the adjoining development.

In terms of arrangement of dwellings, these are traditionally laid out with all units attractively facing the roads with parking spaces being in the main within the front of the houses and therefore well surveyed. Also the units have been stepped and staggered appropriately to create more interest. Parking provision relates to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit which again is in compliance with the advice contained in PPG3. Also proposal does provide turning facilities in both cases for refuse vehicles etc effectively providing a cul-de-sac head for both access roads.

The final issue and one which is causing concern is the proposal to ensure that the cul-de-sac which serves plots 1-9 inclusive is left open ended and therefore capable of being extended through to the land which abuts the southern boundary. In this regard, Members are advised that the area of land to the south which extends round and abuts land to the west is the current of a current planning application for its residential development. Such a proposal, Members are advised, is contrary to the allocation of this land which is employment land and that proposal is held in abeyance at the present moment at the request of the applicants who are reconsidering the proposal. This apart however, the Highway Engineer is of the view that the Kingslea Park Estate would benefit from an additional potential access other than currently served off Cadets Walk, although he would not anticipate it being anything other that a secondary access. It is anticipated that the development of the land to the south and west would result in major alterations to existing road systems involving Kingston Road lining with Cadets Walk which would provide a number of alternative options for residential traffic from Kingslea Park Estate.

Members will note that the scheme does provide turning space which is important given the comments of the Fire Officer.

Certainly if the land to the south were to be developed for industrial purposes, the carriageway width of 4.8 metres serving these nine units would not lend itself for use by industrial traffic and it would be seen therefore more as a route to the south from the estate rather than the other way. In any event, timing of the extension of this road is at present unknown and would be dependent upon future development on surrounding land.

Other issues relate to provision of play area and Members will note that this development is immediately abutting the proposed play area for the site. House types are of a similar design and appearance to those which have already been constructed.

It is important to appreciate that this proposal completes the development to the allocated land in respect of Kingslea Park Estate with all remaining land to the east and west having employment allocation. Concerns being expressed by existing residents regarding the potential through route have been analysed with the most important point being that connection through the southern boundary to the land to the south will not take place until development proposals are finalised for that adjoining land. Such proposals are unlikely to be finalised in the near future with the owner of that land continuing to pursue residential on the site contrary to policies. This apart however, I see no reason why this proposal to finish off the Kingslea Park Estate cannot be considered at this stage and therefore recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to material considerations detailed in this report I am of the opinion that consent should be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

                       Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Shanklin Town Council recommend approval.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications.

One letter of objection from a local resident on grounds of development not in keeping with the area, being a chalet bungalow, loss of privacy, generation of congestion through standing vehicles and therefore making it difficult to access her property.

Evaluation

In August 2000 outline planning permission for a chalet bungalow with integral garage and for vehicular access was refused on grounds of inadequate plot size, loss of privacy, unsatisfactory access, inadequate turning facilities and loss of amenity space. Despite being an outline application, extensive details were submitted and treated for guidance purposes.

In January 2001 a site inspection was carried out in response to a resubmission and Members resolved again to refuse planning permission on grounds of plot size and shape, relationship to adjoining development being detrimental to the occupiers of adjoining properties by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy, insufficient parking and turning, development likely to attract standing vehicles and lack of amenity space left with the existing building. The refusal of permission was the subject of an appeal which was duly dismissed by letter dated 5 July 2001.

The site was part of the garden area to Edricpa, a large detached red brick dwelling located on the south east corner of Sandy Lane with Princes Way at Shanklin. The proposed dwelling is shown to be sited in the rear garden of Edricpa with a site frontage of approximately 10.5 metres. This is approximately 3 metres smaller than the previously refused scheme, but the reduced frontage is as a result of the side boundary being swung away from Edricpa, thus creating additional amenity area for the existing property, but the rear width of the site is retained as before. The site still has a depth of approximately 18 metres and this time the dwelling is shown as a two bedroom chalet style dwelling with kitchen, dining room, lounge and study on ground floor. Space of approximately one metre is shown on the western boundary and approximately 0.7 metre on the southern boundary. The western boundary dividing Edricpa from the site is proposed as a 2 metre high close boarded fence.

This application is a further resubmission of the previously refused and dismissed scheme and the main differences are the repositioning of the western boundary, the omission of dormers on the southern plane of the roof and their substitution with obscure glazed roof lights. The ground floor plan shows a study but, of course, this could be used as a third bedroom.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle and those factors which were considered before concerning the site size, density, mass of the building and the effect on the adjoining properties as well as matters of lack of access and parking on site, all in the light of the Inspector's findings in the recent appeal.

As before, the site is located within the development envelope and surrounded by residential property and therefore the principle of residential development in this area is not contrary to policy. The site is small, slightly smaller than those of the previous scheme being the majority of

the rear garden of the existing property, but having frontage onto Princes Way but, as before, the size of this site is considerably smaller than those of the general size of plots in the vicinity.

In determining the appeal, the Inspector considered the determining factors to be:

(a) the living conditions of the adjoining residents and future occupants of the existing house with respect to outlook, loss of privacy and amenity space; and

(b) highway safety.

He concluded that the proposal would not cause any demonstrable harm to the outlook from the adjoining properties. He felt that there would be no harm in approving a development on this site without vehicular access and parking and therefore it would not lead to any demonstrable risk to highway safety and would not conflict with the then draft UDP Policy TR16.

Although he dismissed the appeal, he felt that the determining factors were the effect on the outlook from the rear of Edricpa and the lack of amenity space left with that property. Differences to the scheme also include the re-siting of the proposed dwelling parallel to the eastern boundary with the property in Princes Way rather than parallel to Edricpa. In so doing, the dwelling and the common boundary is taken further away from Edricpa resulting in additional space around Edricpa.

The plans submitted are treated for guidance purposes only since all matters are reserved for future consideration. However, the size of the dwelling, the total ridge height and general design principles are considered consistent with adjoining properties and it is anticipated that development very similar to this design would be carried out if consent were granted. On the basis of the submission, I consider the development now to be acceptable, having overcome the reasons for dismissing the previous appeal. Under the circumstances, I consider it would be necessary to impose conditions to require adequate provision of amenity space with Edricpa and to retain car parking as currently provided.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, this revised proposal has addressed the lack of space and poor relationship with the existing property and so long as adequate car parking is retained at the front of the existing dwelling and amenity space is provided for that property, the development is now considered acceptable and consistent with Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

       Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

One letter of comment questioning the proposal as follows:

"Does lowering the height of the bridging units over the corner through way to incorporate this flat interfere with fire safety at the rear of the block together with car parking?

Is a fire engine able to get through to deal with any fire hazards, a burning car or any other hazard for instance?

This also refers to any ambulance service. I understand the podium for Admirals Gardens is so low that no ambulance can get to the door of the building and stretchers have to be used across the podium car park. Emergency services are disadvantaged."

Members will be familiar with the Denmark Road site located centrally in Cowes and the recent agreement to accept as an amendment the number of alterations, mainly architectural, to the extant consent of 1989 in respect of the 'L' shaped block of 33 apartments being the only part of that extant consent which could be carried out without further consent. Members will recall that those amendments were accepted at the meeting held in November 2001.

The 'L' shaped block which forms part of the 1989 consent is mainly four storeys in height with elements of three and two storey towards the northern end of the block.

Proposal before Members seeks consent to create an additional flat within the element of the approved block which has an east/west aspect within which was indicated an arched vehicular access bridged by two storeys of accommodation with the arch having the equivalent height of approximately one and a half storeys.

Applicants now seek consent to incorporate within the 'dead space' an additional flat by reducing the ground to ceiling height under the arch, thus creating an additional floor. Applicants are able to do this due to the fact that it is not necessary for a fire engine or refuse vehicle to have access to the parking area for which the vehicular access is required. Therefore the lowering of the height provides sufficient room to obtain an extra unit. The unit proposed provides a total of three bedroom accommodation with living room, dining room and kitchen etc. Flat to be accessed via a communal staircase which serves other approved flats with the entrance to that staircase being under the covered access.

The only material consideration in respect of this proposal is the effect this additional flat may have on the overall appearance of the amended elevations with secondary issues being that of parking implications and access for emergency service vehicles.

In terms of the first issue, Members will recall that the substantial amendment considered by them related entirely to architectural treatment and this proposal not surprisingly blends in with that revised treatment with window shapes and detailing reflecting that architectural theme. It is important to appreciate that this proposal does not involve any increase in mass, scale or height and is contained entirely within the existing approved block. Therefore from a visual and architectural point of view, this proposal is considered to be acceptable.

In terms of parking, Members will be aware that the approved scheme is adequately provisioned in respect of parking and applicants have indicated one parking space which is relatively easy to achieve to service this additional flat.

Emergency vehicles will still be able to obtain access to the parking area and residential units within the courtyard, via the archway access from Denmark Road, which will be high enough (3.7 m) to allow fire engine and ambulance to enter.

Given the above comments, I consider this proposal is acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations in this report, I consider the application to be acceptable for the reasons given in the Evaluation and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

One letter of objection expressing concerns in respect of existing extension relating to its siting and materials used. Concern regarding future maintenance of proposed additional extension, effect on boundary and proposal resulting in separate bungalow.

Evaluation

This application relates to the erection of a single storey extension to be constructed of block work with render finish and artificial slates. The proposal is to provide annexed accommodation to a semi detached property in residential area. The proposed extension measures 6.6 m x 6.3 m x 3.9 in height and is to be located to the rear of an existing extension which was approved in 1993. It will be close to the western boundary, has a patio door to the rear and three windows in the eastern elevation.

The accommodation is for an elderly relative and a letter has been received in support of the application from the relatives Doctor detailing health concerns and stating that it would be of benefit for this lady to be able to live close to her daughter.

In accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, proposals will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and conform with the criteria set out in the policy. In addition, Policy H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) states applications will be permitted where they are of appropriate size, scale and design, where an additional dwelling is not created or where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

Determining factors in considering application are whether extension is of appropriate size, scale and design to original property and whether it would have a significant impact to the detriment of character of the locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties.

The existing extension was approved to provide accommodation for disabled person and projects 9.3 m into the garden. The proposed annexed accommodation would be built onto the end of the existing extension and projects a further 6.6 m into the garden. The proposal would also be wider than the existing extension and therefore closer to the eastern boundary.

Due consideration needs to be given to the personal circumstances of applicant. I have also considered proximity of proposal to boundaries and size of proposal in relation to original property.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am of the opinion that the personal circumstances do no outweigh the policy as set out above and the proposal is not of an appropriate size, scale and design and will detract from the character of the locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties. In consequence, the proposal conflicts with Policies D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Evaluation

Application relates to a large modern dwelling positioned within substantial curtilage accessed over bridle way off Buckbury Lane. Dwelling was constructed as a replacement for former dairy cottage in 1998. Dwelling is positioned approximately 15 metres back from bridle way.

Consent is sought for a building comprising of three stables with floor area of approximately 11 metres by 5.3 metres. Building is shown to be constructed of timber under a black onduline roof. Submitted plans show proposed stable to replace a dairy building constructed of concrete blocks which is grouped with other outbuildings.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the proposed stable block would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area.

Policy C23 of the IW Unitary Development Plan states that applications for stables and field shelters associated with the use of land for the keeping of horses for recreational purposes will be approved where they are sensitively sited to avoid harming the visual amenity of the countryside, are of a scale, design and construction appropriate to the location and are constructed of timber.

Submitted plans show building to be sited in close proximity to bridle way, thereby having the potential to be visible from outside of the site. However, the stable will be grouped with existing outbuildings and will be relatively well screened from bridle way by natural growth. I am therefore of the opinion that proposal will not have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the area.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, the proposed stable block is relatively small, constructed of timber and will be relatively screened from outside of the site. I am therefore of the opinion that it complies with Policy C23 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

       Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds that site is unsuitable, the development would result in the loss of potential car parking space, there would be a reduction of the visual amenities for neighbouring properties and the Council are also concerned about the security of the building, particularly at night, as it would be in a relatively isolated area.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Community Liaison Officer raises no objection to proposal but requests that scheme is amended to incorporate the following:

The area to the rear of the building to be fenced off with lockable gates for necessary access, this may now include an area for bins which would be out of sight of visitors.

Lighting for residents and visitors shall be installed to illuminate area to entrance from car park.

The Council's Housing Officer advises that the type of accommodation to be provided by the development is much needed in the West Wight and is being developed in direct response to the Council's housing strategies.

Six letters received from local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Day centre within site is single storey and hours of use are restricted conserving amenities of neighbouring residents.

Proposal would result in loss of parking which presently serves day centre, putting pressure on public car park resulting in loss of spaces for general public.

Proposal would be detrimental to local amenities.

Removal of portakabin would result in loss of valuable day care facilities.

Provision of houses/flats without parking provision in rural community and an aged population with limited bus service is unrealistic.

Potential traffic problems - access to and from car park into main thoroughfare - limited space to side of Avenue House to permit two cars to pass.

Development not compatible with surrounding buildings - modern in appearance and over-dominates site.

No amenity space for future occupants.

Overlooking and loss of privacy of neighbouring properties.

Development should be single storey in height.

Proposal will overshadow and have dominant effect on neighbouring property resulting in loss of light.

Proposal would be likely to lead to more intensive residential use.

Proposal would compromise security of the site.

Evaluation

Application relates to area of land forming part of day care centre premises located to rear of properties fronting Avenue Road and High Street with access from public car park adjoining site. Site is presently occupied by timber sectional building providing main day care facilities and portakabin in north east corner of site providing learning resource room. These buildings were approved in January 1998 and August 1999 respectively for a temporary period expiring 31 March 2001. Day care centre provides facilities for people recovering from mental illness.

Current application seeks permission for two storey building to provide five flats, three on ground floor and two at first floor level. Building would be located in north east corner of site in position presently occupied by portakabin, thereby necessitating its removal/relocation. Flats would provide accommodation comprising kitchen/lounge area, shower room/wc and one bedroom, suitable for single person occupation.

I am advised that the development is a product of a partnership approach between South Wight Housing Association and the Isle of Wight Council (Social Services and Housing). The aim of the project is to provide move-on accommodation for the West Wight which will offer totally independent living for people recovering from mental health problems who are ready to re-establish themselves in the community. The property and tenancies will be managed by South Wight Housing and the Directorate of Social Services and Housing will be ultimately responsible for the nominations but will consult the relevant partners involved in the project.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether building is of an appropriate size, scale and design or would detract from character of locality and amenities of neighbouring properties.

Site is located within settlement of Freshwater as defined by development envelope on IW 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 a high standard of design.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

Building would be constructed in brick under concrete tiled roof. Windows to rear elevation of building to first floor accommodation would be limited to Velux windows and light cubes serving kitchens and bathrooms respectively. Building would have glazed features to front corners of building, although section between ground floor and first floor windows would be opaque panels. Submitted plans indicate that windows in north elevation at first floor level would be obscure glazed. I am satisfied that position and style of windows to first floor accommodation are such that they will not lead to unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Wall along north and east boundaries of site would prevent overlooking from ground floor windows.

Although building provides two storey accommodation, height to eaves level would measure approximately 4.2 metres, lower than a two storey building of traditional design, with first floor accommodation provided partially within roof. Building would have overall height to ridge of approximately 7.5 metres. Plans which accompanied original submission showed building located 2 metres from north boundary and approximately 1.5 metres from eastern boundary with properties fronting High Street which have relatively long rear gardens. Revised plans were subsequently received showing building located further to south, approximately 4 metres from north boundary. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that building would have excessive or over-dominant impact on neighbouring properties.

Whilst building differs in style to those in the general locality, it stands alone and the design is considered to be of a high standard. Therefore, I do not consider that building would detract from character and amenities of locality. Building will not encroach significantly into parking area to day centre and is likely to result in loss of only one parking space. Furthermore, additional parking could be provided elsewhere within site if required. However, having regard to nature of proposal, I do not consider that development is likely to generate significant demand for additional parking and parking space lost as a result of development would be provided elsewhere on site.

With regard to comments of the Community Liaison Officer, I am satisfied that the elements he wished to see provided in the development can be secured by imposition of appropriate conditions, should Members be minded to approve application.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that proposal represents acceptable form of development which will not detract from character of area or amenities of neighbouring properties.

1.        Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

2.    Recommendation         -      That the Property Services Manager is advised that the consent for the day care buildings has expired and they should either be removed or an application submitted for their continued siting.

Representations

Parish Council has no objection.

Highway's Authority does not wish to comment as there are no highway implications.

Letters from four local addresses, commenting on drainage issues including the existing water course which is piped under Hamstead Road and which has been blocked on two occasions in the last nine years. A second pipe of similar capacity may be needed. Two correspondents consider that proposal will blend in more satisfactorily with nearby properties than that which has been approved but express concern that there will be some loss of privacy due to the alignment and location of the proposed dwelling.

A further comment is that the road is vulnerable to "pot holing" and will not support any further traffic.

Evaluation

Bungalow on somewhat overgrown site is constructed in timber with roof clad in mineral felt tiles. It has floor area of approximately 44 sq. metres and volume of about 112 cubic metres. The site is north of a recently constructed bungalow and immediately south of a copse area which is in the ownership of the applicant.

Site is within AONB and adjacent Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

Planning permission for demolition of dwelling and replacement with detached chalet bungalow with integral garage refused September 1999 on grounds that proposal was too large and failed to meet requirements of Council's planning policy with regard to replacements. A second application for a replacement dwelling was approved in October 2000 with that dwelling shown to have a floor area of 91 sq. metres and volume in the region of 450 cubic metres. That dwelling was to be located in the central southern part of the site, some 37 metres back from Hamstead Road and about 13 metres at its nearest point from the rear of the existing dwelling.

Current proposal is for a slightly larger replacement dwelling with a proposed volume of about 565 cubic metres. Policy H9 of the UDP is as follows:

"Planning applications for residential development outside the development boundaries of defined settlements will only be approved if they are for:

(a) A replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling."

Assessment of scale and mass can be made by analysis of the overall increase in footprint and volume, the nature of the original property and whether there are any characteristics of the immediate area which should be taken into account. It was on this basis that the earlier decision to approve a replacement dwelling was made and whilst that now proposed is slightly larger (by some 15 cubic metres) than the approved replacement, the proposal will sit comfortably into the street scene and is similar to its neighbour to the south in terms of scale, mass and design. I therefore conclude that the replacement dwelling complies with Policy H9 of the UDP.

An additional advantage of the development now proposed is that the proposed dwelling will be located further away from the copse in the northern part of the site and therefore, will minimise any adverse effect on the nature conservation value of that area. In design terms, the proposed dwelling is of simple chalet bungalow appearance on its south eastern elevation but has a more traditional two storey appearance to the rear. Although closer to the southern boundary, there would still be a distance of 9 metres between side walls and as the only window in the side elevation of the proposed dwelling is at ground floor level, no direct overlooking would arise. Whilst some indirect overlooking from first floor bedroom windows would occur, this is not thought to create such loss of privacy as to warrant refusal of the application.

Materials proposed are not specified but this issue can be covered by a condition. The previously approved dwelling was to be constructed in facing brickwork with plain tile roof and similar materials would be quite appropriate on the revised dwelling.