PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 12 AUGUST 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF 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 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.

4. YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

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

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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

12 AUGUST 2003

Paper C TCP/25508 P/628/03 Newport

Land opposite Gore Cemetery,

south west of Arreton Cross,

Downend Road, Newport,

Isle of Wight.

1.

A/01314/A P/00968/03 Castle Inn, 91 High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301BQ

Newport

Conditional Approval

2.

TCP/02915/D P/00982/03 Rayners, Halletts Shute, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410RH

Freshwater

Refusal

3.

TCP/03563/E P/01109/03 land at Sandpipers Hotel & rear of Sandpipers Glen, Coastguard Lane, Freshwater, PO40

Freshwater

Refusal

4.

TCP/11141/X P/01129/03 10, Luccombe Road, Shanklin, PO376RQ

Shanklin

Unconditional approval

5.

LBC/14574/J P/00969/03 Castle Inn, 91 High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301BQ

Newport

Unconditional approval

6.

TCP/17180/C P/01233/03 58, Victoria Road, Cowes, PO31

Cowes

Refusal

7.

TCP/20109/G P/01184/03 land rear of Dove Farm House and 2 Dovecotes forming part of Merston Valley Nurseries, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30

Arreton

Refusal

8.

TCP/22165/C P/00795/03 land between Brook Cottage and Rome Cottage, Main Road, Chillerton, Newport, PO30

Gatcombe

Conditional Approval

9.

TCP/24820/B P/00548/03 43 High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334LU

Wootton

Refusal

10.	TCP/24833/A P/01192/03 Linnet Mead, Redhill Lane, Sandford, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383ET	Godshill	Refusal
11.	TCP/25352/A P/01081/03 14 Glendale Close, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334RF	Wootton	Refusal

12.

TCP/25587 P/00904/03 land at Woodlands Vale Farm, Oakhill Road, Seaview, PO34

Seaview

Conditional Approval

13.

TCP/25604 P/01022/03 Lahai-Roi, High Street, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409LG

Freshwater

Conditional Approval

14.

TCP/25638 P/01136/03 land adjoining 10, School Lane, Carisbrooke, Newport, PO30

Newport

Conditional Approval

15.

TCP/25651 P/01172/03 land at Kingston Wharf, Kingston Road, East Cowes, PO32

East Cowes

Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 12 AUGUST 2003

(a) TCP/12204C Land at Gurnard Marsh, Marsh Road GURNARD

(b) TCP/21784B The Orchard, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence VENTNOR

1.	A/01314/A P/00968/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North Registration Date: 12/06/2003 - Advertisement Consent Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Applicant: Mr D Evatt Retention of 2 non-illuminated wall mounted signs Castle Inn, 91 High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301BQ

See joint report on application number LBC/14574J/P969/03 (Item No. 5)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Standard condition - B01

2	Standard condition - B02

3	Standard condition - B03

4	Standard condition - B04

5	Standard condition - B05

2.

TCP/02915/D P/00982/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton Registration Date: 29/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr A Scott Demolition of dwelling; construction of detached house Rayners, Halletts Shute, Norton, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410RH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

There are conflicting policies in respect of this development that require thorough and careful consideration before a balanced judgement can be made.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The processing of this minor application has taken eleven weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit because of the policy issues raised and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a modest red brick bungalow situated on the north western side of Halletts Shute, approximately 150 metres north of its junction with Pixley Hill. It forms part of a small group of dwellings characterised by substantial houses. Immediately south west of the application site is open countryside. The existing dwelling is barely noticeable form Halletts Shute, being screened from the public eye by substantial natural growth within the front garden.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought to replace the existing bungalow with a four bedroomed detached house. The proposed dwelling is shown to occupy the same position as the existing bungalow. My calculations show that the proposed dwelling would represent an increase in floor space by approximately 120%. The proposed dwelling can be described as having an appropriate external appearance, interesting design features and suitable materials in the form of red brick, stone quoins under a slate roof.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is shown as being outside of the development envelope. The following policies are considered to be relevant:

D1 Standards of Design.

H9 Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council supports this application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is situated outside of the development envelope and is therefore considered to form part of the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy.

Policy H9 specifically deals with residential development outside of development boundaries, and lists six categories of housing development that may be acceptable. Since the proposed dwelling is not for an agricultural worker, or a conversion, or for tourist related development, or an affordable home, it is my view that the only criterion worthy of further consideration relates to infill development and replacement dwellings.

In terms of the former, when giving due regard to the normally accepted definition of infilling, i.e. the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses, it is my opinion that this development is not infilling meaning that this criterion should be given little weight.

The main consideration in respect of this application is whether the development satisfies criterion (a) which refers to "a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling". Consideration must also be given to policy D1 (Standards of Design) that requires new development to enhance the quality and character of the built environment by respecting the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area, whilst being sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing and of a height, mass and density compatible with surrounding buildings and uses.

Whilst recognising that the proposal would have an acceptable design and general appearance, and would, in my opinion, satisfy the requirements of policy D1, it is felt that priority should be given to the requirements of policy H9.

No plans have been submitted showing the dimensions of the existing building, and therefore no percentage increase in volume can be calculated. However, it is apparent that the existing building is a bungalow; with a pitched roof, but offering a maximum of two bedrooms. The proposed replacement dwelling is of two storeys, with a pitched roof, with lounge, dining room, kitchen, study, hall and WC on ground floor, and four bedrooms, shower room and bathroom upstairs. In this respect, the substantial increase in floor space and volume cannot be regarded as a replacement of similar scale and mass meaning that this development fails to meet all criteria laid out under policy H9 of the UDP. I therefore have no alternative but to recommend refusal of this application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the satisfactory design and general appearance of the proposed dwelling does not outweigh the objection raised in respect of policy H9 and therefore, on balance, recommend refusal of this application.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

Although the Local Planning Authority is willing to consider replacements of existing dwellings outside the development boundaries of defined settlements, in this specific case the proposal was not considered to be of a similar scale or mass to the existing dwelling and is therefore contrary to the intentions of policy H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3.

TCP/03563/E P/01109/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton Registration Date: 02/06/2003 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Gate Lane Co-operative & Afton Marsh Gate Ltd Outline for 14 low fossil energy living units for the 50 plus age group with associated community facilities & parking land at Sandpipers Hotel & rear of Sandpipers Glen, Coastguard Lane, Freshwater, PO40

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application.

The processing of this application has taken ten weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications as this was the first meeting of the Committee at which the matter could realistically be considered. However, if determined at this meeting, the application would have been dealt with within the thirteen week performance target for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land located at northern end of Coastguard Lane, immediately to west of Afton Marsh. In addition, application also relates to small area of lane within curtilage of Sandpipers Hotel, immediately adjacent to and accessed off public car park within Freshwater Bay. Main body of site is, for the most part, unmanaged and somewhat overgrown and is enclosed by natural growth, containing several small trees and shrubs. The site is presently accessed off Coastguard Lane over private driveway running between existing properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/3563D/S/22276 - Outline planning permission for dwelling on land adjacent The Glen was refused in December 1987 on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Land not allocated residential development in local plans.

Detrimental impact on amenities and character of area.

Undesirable backland development prejudicial to character and amenities of the area and privacy of adjoining properties.

Proposal would set precedent for future applications of similar nature.

Unsatisfactory access to serve development by reason of inadequate construction.

The application was subsequently the subject of an appeal, dismissed in August 1988.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for 14 low fossil energy living units to be occupied by persons of 50 years of age and over with associated community facilities and parking. Siting of buildings and means of access are to be considered at this stage with all other matters reserved for subsequent approval. With regard to means of access, pedestrian and limited vehicular access would be provided over Coastguard Lane whilst it is intended that main parking facilities would be provided within curtilage of an adjacent hotel premises with access from the public car park within the Bay.

Whilst seeking outline planning permission only, information which accompanies application indicates that accommodation would be provided in a single and two storey building with community hall forming an integral part of the building. Community hall would represent relatively small element of the overall floor area of the building. Information which accompanies submission indicates that applicants intend to adopt energy conservation and other environmentally friendly measures in construction and occupation of the development, including grey water system, solar and photovoltaic cells and a sewage reed plant. Applicants also intend to promote a Green Transport Plan providing for an electric powered rural community bus and/or electric cars. The intention of the scheme is to promote sustainable development while increasing the quality of life for the future occupants of the units.

Application was accompanied by information in support of proposal, a copy of which is attached to this report as an Appendix. Applicants have subsequently submitted further document expanding on this information which is also attached. In the supporting information, the site is described as a domestic garden area and it is, therefore, suggested that proposal makes use of brownfield site and would create a "rounding off" of the existing linear development along Coastguard Lane.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 - General Policy and Principles contains section on sustainable development. The guidance note advises that the Government is committed to the principles of sustainable development set out in Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy (1994). In addition the guidance note advises that the strategy recognises the important role of the planning system in regulating the development and use of land in the public interest. The guidance note provides details of issues which should be addressed by a sustainable framework including provision for the nation's needs for commercial and industrial development, food production, minerals extraction, new homes and other buildings, while respecting environmental objectives and conservation of both the cultural heritage and natural resources (including wildlife, landscape, water, soil and air quality) taking particular care to safeguard designations of national and international importance.

Application site is located immediately adjacent but outside the development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. Site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent Afton Marsh designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a local nature reserve. Relevant policies of the UDP 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.

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies), will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position, will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the site.

D13 - Energy Conservation.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer comments that Sandpipers Hotel car park is accessed via the Council public car park and that there is a presumption against any new development being accessed off a public car park and, although the right of access from the car park already exists, this is for the existing level of parking that services the Sandpipers buildings. As the proposal is not on this site, he considers that car parking to serve the proposed development should be accessed off Coastguard Lane. In addition, he comments that the additional parking as proposed would obstruct the existing access and result in loss of some marsh. For the above reasons, Highway Engineer recommends refusal.

AONB Planning and Information Officer comments that site lies within the AONB where primary purpose is the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty through the consideration of landscape character. She advises that in pursuing this primary purpose, the Countryside Agency has clarified that account should be taken of the social and economic needs of the local communities. The AONB unit is generally supportive of the aims and objectives outlined in this proposal, namely to provide much needed additional independent housing for local people at reasonable prices. They are also supportive of the green credentials outlined in the documentation submitted in support of the proposal. However, they are aware that there are elements of the proposal that may potentially conflict with some policies of the UDP, particularly those relating to location of development outside the development boundary and protection of the landscape character of the AONB.

Project Co-ordinator - Green Island Awards (Agenda 21) supports application for following reasons:

Proposal involves innovative approach to residential development with potential to be flagship project for the Island.

Proposal embodies all concepts of Agenda 21.

Proposal would raise profile of sustainable construction on the Island and would hopefully facilitate further similar developments.

Proposal aims to address wider issues such as sustainable transport and social sustainability.

Challenges conventional forms of development and is architecturally challenging.

Overall, he considers proposal to be extremely progressive, it is unique, well researched, makes a statement and is an opportunity for the Island to begin to lead the way.

Environment Agency raises no objection to proposal and provides general advice to Local Planning Authority and applicant in respect of sustainable drainage systems.

English Nature raises no objection to proposal, subject to Environment Agency formally confirming that the development will not have adverse hydrological impact on the SSSI. In formulating their comments, English Nature indicate that they have carried out consultations with the Environment Agency to establish whether or not the development is likely to compromise the opportunities to manage water levels within the SSSI now or in the future either by removing flood storage capacity or by increasing the number of dwellings at risk of flooding within the flood plain. They have been informed by the Agency that there is no possibility of the development causing a problem in this respect. Furthermore, they have sought advice from the Agency as to whether the development will increase the pollution loading from surface run off or other discharges in the SSSI and have been informed that the Agency will require the developer to install a sustainable urban drainage system which will prevent this site receiving any significant increase in pollution loading above background levels.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds that site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that development would be out of keeping with the surrounding area. In addition, they comment that access appears to be over a public footpath and consider this to be backland development of a site which is not within the Unitary Development Plan.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted eleven letters (ten from local residents and one from mainland resident) objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Proposal is contrary to a number of policies of the UDP.

Site is outside development envelope.

Over development of site in rural area.

Permission previously refused for bungalow within grounds of The Glen.

Site within AONB and adjacent Afton Marsh which is a local nature reserve and SSSI.

Status of land as brownfield site is questioned - suggested that site is agricultural land.

Proposal is contrary to PPG3 due to lack of sequential test.

Adverse impact on heritage coast.

Negative impact on Afton nature reserve.

Adverse impact on the ongoing restoration/maintenance of hedgerows in the area.

Negative impact of additional vehicle movements on local roads.

Coastguard Lane with blind corner at junction with Gate Lane would become inevitable short cut.

Coastguard Lane unsuitable as access to serve development and use of hotel car park as proposed not considered to be practical answer - level of parking proposed is inadequate.

Development will have adverse impact on wildlife habitat in area and result in loss of trees.

Proposal involves appropriation of public footpath and use of Council car park for access.

Design of buildings out of keeping with surrounding properties.

Development would set precedent for further development in area adversely impacting on beauty of area. Additional units proposed would place unsustainable burden on already overstretched services including sewage, water, drainage and NHS.

Active badger sett in area.

Whilst there is a shortage of accommodation for over 50s in area, more than half units proposed would be more than adequate.

Inadequate space provided for recycling and energy efficient systems - while the scheme has some merit it is unsuitable for this site.

Green transport proposals not viable on scheme of this size leading to greater car ownership with inadequate parking within proposal.

Green solutions impractical at this site and would add significantly to cost of project - would not provide low cost homes.

Properties would be at risk from flooding.

Proposed water/sewage regime would disturb equilibrium of this sensitive site.

Submission not supported by environmental impact, housing need, highways or transport study.

Eight sites within settlement allocated for development in UDP which make sufficient provision for the life of the plan to 2011.

Adequacy of reed beds to cater for water from properties questioned and concern expressed regarding consequential pollution.

Application has attracted 37 letters, including one from a mainland resident and one from independent charity based on mainland, and a petition containing 22 signatures supporting proposal and raising following issues:

Location of site is ideal making good use of area of land presently used as dump/storage area for variety of items - development would improve aesthetics of site.

Property is set well back from Bay Road.

Principle of affordable, sustainable and low cost housing accommodation of benefit to the Island.

Provision of green project on Island would be tremendous educational boost for all children involving features to safeguard environment.

Development could attract visitors from mainland and abroad.

Proposal will enhance environment, provide much needed local housing and enhance/improve facilities for local people.

Proposed community centre and garden will benefit the Bay.

Site borders the development envelope.

Access via Coastguard Lane has been carefully considered and proposal will not create any additional problems or use of Lane.

Bay is isolated with expensive and unreliable bus service - community centre would be valuable asset.

Proposal will meet Agenda 21 objectives.

Proposal will help protect the flora and fauna including the provision of a wildlife pond.

Large number of properties in area owned/occupied as holiday homes.

Existing fossil fuels are in limited supply.

Raise awareness locally and nationally of need to build ecologically.

A number of those submitting letters in support of the proposal indicate that they are members of the Gate Lane Co-operative, one of the organisations named as applicant in respect of this submission.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Comments have been received from the Architectural Liaison Officer raising the following issues:

Target customers (50+) are an age group that normally have own transport - 6 parking spaces for fourteen units not acceptable. Community Hall for general use with no parking is untenable. This could lead to disorder situations over state of parking in small car park and on approach roads.

Due to access arrangements, whole area will be susceptible to security issues - no privacy and generally no "defensible space".

There appears to be a number of stairs to first floor entrances which, without details, could lead to 'fear of crime' situations which is not acceptable for entry/exit to living units.

Lighting raises important issues on such a site - application contains no details in this respect.

EVALUATION

The application seeks outline consent with siting and means of access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for subsequent approval. Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether development of site for residential purposes as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether access and parking arrangements have been satisfactorily addressed.

Site is located immediately adjacent but outside the development boundary as defined on Unitary Development Plan in an area where further development would generally be resisted, unless it falls within a category of development which may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with policies of the plan. Information submitted in support of application indicates that the proposed units are intended to provide housing for the 50+ age group and that the development will provide accommodation for members of the applicant's co-operative group who would otherwise find it difficult to find affordable housing. In accordance with policy H15 - Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions, permission may exceptionally be granted for small scale residential developments on sites in or adjoining villages in order to help meet the needs of local people unable to afford market rents or to purchase property outright. This policy is generally aimed at proposals in or adjacent small rural villages, typically with population below 3,000. In the case of the current proposal, the site is located adjacent the development boundary of a settlement with a population greater than 3,000 where it would be intended to satisfy affordable housing needs either on identified sites or through opportunities arising from the development of brownfield sites within the defined settlement. I consider that current application is accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate that there is an identified need for the housing to be provided or that this need could not be satisfied on sites within the defined settlement. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposal complies with requirements of policy H15 or can be justified on grounds that it is required to meet a local need.

In accordance with policy U1 of the Unitary Development Plan, development involving the provision of health, social, community, religious and education services may exceptionally be permitted where it adjoins the development envelope boundaries of the communities which they are intended to serve. In considering such proposals, applicants will generally be expected to demonstrate that no land is available within the development envelope of the relevant community to accommodate the proposed facilities. In the case of the current proposal, whilst accepting that there may be a need for such provision, the community facilities form a relatively small part of the overall development and I do not consider that, in isolation, it would justify approval of the application which also involves provision of 14 units of residential accommodation.

Applicants consider proposal to represent a unique project which would incorporate principles of sustainable development, involving provision of low energy housing together with other green initiatives including a green transport plan and creation of a water reed bed and grey water system. Whilst the Government is committed to promoting sustainable development and, in accordance with policy D13 - Energy Conservation, of the Unitary Development Plan development will be expected to conserve, or make efficient use of energy resources, I do not consider that the fact that the development involves the provision of low energy houses provides sufficient justification to allow development outside the development boundary. In this respect, Members will recall proposal for three detached dwellings adjacent Binfield House, Mill Lane, Binfield, Newport, which was refused planning permission in November 2002. The proposal incorporated the principles of sustainable development involving the provision of low energy eco homes as a demonstration project using renewable and recycling technologies. Permission was refused principally on grounds that the site was located outside the development boundary and would be detrimental to the rural character of the area involving intrusive development out of character with the prevailing rural pattern of development in the locality.

The application was the subject of a subsequent appeal which was dismissed in May 2003. With regard to issue of energy conservation, the Inspector noted that the Council policy allows for development outside defined settlements in exceptional circumstances and acknowledge the beneficial effects of the energy saving technology proposed and the need to have a working, independently validated demonstration project to show potential users, including Housing Association. However, she concluded that this did not provide sufficient justification to allow the development as an exception to policy.

Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 clearly advises that where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plans, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, I consider that, having regard to location of site outside the development envelope boundary, proposal is clearly contrary to policy and I do not consider that there are any other material considerations, including the suggestion that the development is intended to meet a local need or that the energy conservation aspects of the proposal are sufficient to outweigh the general presumption against development in this location.

Proposal involves provision of six parking spaces within curtilage of a nearby hotel premises. It is considered that the level of car parking proposed is inadequate to serve the proposed development and, having regard to their location, somewhat divorced from the proposed dwellings and community hall, it is likely that occupants and visitors to the site would ultimately use Coastguard Lane to access the site. Coastguard Lane is considered to be of substandard construction and of inadequate width to serve the development. In addition, due to the alignment of the road through the Bay, lack of a pavement and position of adjacent buildings, visibility at junction of the Lane with Coastguard Lane is inadequate. Having regard to these factors, I agree with the Highways Engineer that the proposal makes inadequate and inappropriate access and parking arrangements to serve the proposed development.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the right set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, having regard to location of site outside development boundary that development of site as proposed is unacceptable in principle and I do not consider that the issues relating to local need or energy conservation issues are sufficient to outweigh the fundamental policy objection to the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of development and would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The proposal as submitted is not supported by sufficient evidence to outweigh Policies restricting residential development in the countryside to that shown to be essential in the interests of agriculture and therefore is contrary to the Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policy S4 (Countryside Will Be Protected From Inappropriate Development) and Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3

Access and parking arrangements as proposed would result in an intensification of the use of the access from the public car park likely to prejudice the safety of vehicles and pedestrians using the car park and Coastguard Lane is considered to be unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width, construction and visibility at its junction with Gate Lane. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

4.	TCP/11141/X P/01129/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 04/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Ms M M Cole Continued use of hotel as private dwelling 10, Luccombe Road, Shanklin, PO376RQ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The recommendation is a departure and/or contrary to, or in conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application, if determined at this meeting, will have taken ten weeks to determine. The delay having been caused by the need to obtain further information from the applicant.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Empress of the Sea Hotel, formerly known as The Bungalow Hotel is located on the east side of Luccombe Road, almost opposite the junction with Priory Road at Shanklin.

It has an area of approximately 0.32 hectares and the building occupying the site is mostly two storeys of accommodation under hipped and gabled slate roofs, the main fabric of the building being natural stone but with additional modern elements erected at the rear.

The site is located on the eastern side of Luccombe Road and falls away to the coastal slope into cliff. The area is one of mixed development, mostly residential and hotels and of old and modern buildings. The area opposite has been the subject of a recent permission for residential development which has already commenced. To the south, on the site of the old hospital, modern flats have recently been approved on appeal and the former Upper Chine School site has undergone substantial change with the conversion of many of the original buildings into residential use and the infilling of spaces with substantial residential properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In February 1997 planning application was submitted for an enclosure to the swimming pool and in July 1997 consent was granted for a proprietor's dwelling. Prior to those applications there have been several over many years which sought consent for various developments connected with the hotel.

In May 1999 an outline application for residential development of the site was submitted and although recommended for refusal, the application was withdrawn.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks consent for the continued use of the hotel as a private dwelling. The hotel closed last year and has not operated this year as a hotel.

In support of the application the Agent has submitted letters from his client's Accountant and Estate Agents and a letter from the applicant's Insurance Brokers and a copy letter from Isle of Wight Tourism. In addition the applicant has written a letter of explanation and the Agent points out the history of the site and the difficulties with running the hotel.

The applicant's Estate Agent has enclosed accounts for the year ending 2001 indicating a net loss of approximately £100,000 and concludes that the only way the hotel has managed to keep running is by the introduction of substantial sums of money put in by the applicant.

The Estate Agents confirm that the property was offered for sale in November 2001; that particulars were sent to numerous applicants throughout the country; that advertisements were placed in both national and local media. They confirm that their efforts failed to achieve anything other than unacceptably low offers; raise the question of the uncertainty of the adjoining development and that a large development will be likely to have a significant effect on bookings during the building operations and repeat business with a probable loss of income for a protracted period.

The Insurance Brokers, acting on behalf of the applicant, confirm that, due to the location of the premises and the previous experience regarding subsidence at the property, their markets have declined to provide terms and premiums (in short they are not prepared to insure the property). In conclusion the Insurance Broker suggests that the applicant should approach a local provider who may have a scheme to insure the property. This means that the property cannot trade.

The applicant's summary of the situation is included as an appendix to this report.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown to be within the designated development envelope on the proposals map. It abuts the site of interest in nature conservation being the coastal slope.

Policy T5 of the Unitary Development Plan states:-

"Outside the defined hotel areas, development resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where:-

a) there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation;

b) existing accommodation is upgraded or improved; or

c) the proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than 10 lettable bedrooms.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Coastal Manager comments to follow.

Isle of Wight Tourism raise no objection in this instance but point out that they would not normally support such an application given the location and that they acknowledge that the recent cliff fall has prejudiced the insurability of the premises for public liability compromising their ability to trade.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council offer no comment.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application seeks consent to change the use of a fifteen bedroomed hotel into a private residence; essentially seeking the principle of losing the hotel which would mean the policy objection would be set aside, opening the door to a later application for either redevelopment of the site or the conversion of the building into a greater number of units. However this application seeks consent to continue the use of the premises as a single residential unit.

There is a clear policy conflict in policy T5 which is detailed above. The premises have more than ten letting bedrooms and the policy only allows for the upgrading of such accommodation or change of use to another form of holiday accommodation. However, all such applications have to be considered on merit bearing in mind the policy and any other material factors including trading record, condition and quality of accommodation, the site's location and relationship with surrounding uses and, in this instance, such factors as insurability of the premises, the geological stability of the cliff and the recent incidences of subsidence. The premises appear to be in good decorative order and in good structural order and although all of the bedrooms have en suite facilities, some of those bedrooms on first floor have restricted headroom due to the design of the building and the shape of roof as much of the first floor of accommodation is within the roof space.

This area is one of mixed uses. Predominantly residential, especially since the closure of Upper Chine School, the conversion of the former dormitory buildings into dwellings and the infilling of the spaces in that site with large residential properties. The old Shanklin Hospital has now been cleared, new residential flats have been developed on the site to the north of this hotel but beyond there are still hotel premises. The site opposite has recently received planning permission for residential development but further towards the Chine, many of the properties remain in holiday use. Beyond the site to the south is essentially open countryside abutting the cliff with some long established residences between it and, eventually, Luccombe Village.

It appears that, from the applicant's statement and her accountant's enclosures, that the premises have received substantial sums of investment but for little return and since the applicant's acquisition of the premises, and before, the hotel traded at a loss. Indeed it is difficult to see what additional investment could be implemented in order to improve the trading figures.

The recent grants of planning permission for residential development opposite and adjoining the site concern the applicant and whilst these developments are substantial and could take several months to implement and complete, she has great concern that such substantial operations will prejudice the ability of the hotel to trade at all.

More recently, during the period of heavy rain in the spring, a very large cliff fall occurred at the rear of the site close to the cliff where a large area, according to the applicant, having dimensions of approximately 12 metres by 11 metres collapsed down the coastal slope taking trees, shrubs and lawn with it almost intact and bringing the effective edge of the coastal slope much closer to the hotel. This, it appears, was caused by large volumes of water building up in the lower strata due to a break or blockage in the old drainage system from the adjoining hospital site, resulting in a spectacular collapse. As a result of this substantial subsidence, it is understood that the applicant is unable to obtain public liability insurance and buildings insurance and therefore the hotel has closed, being unable to trade.

It seems that despite the investment over the last few years, the hotel has been unprofitable and it is difficult to see how further investment would turn this around. This coupled with the recent subsidence and the impending residential developments in close proximity and the fact that insurance is unobtainable are likely to exacerbate the unprofitability and ability of the site to trade successfully. It is therefore felt that this is an appropriate case to set aside policy and allow the change of use to residential.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Whilst there is a presumption against the loss of hotels which have more than ten letting bedrooms, the circumstances relative to this property, including the fact that the property has traded unprofitably over the last few years, the recent cliff subsidence and subsequent inability of the applicant to obtain the necessary public liability insurance and other factors there does not seem to be an overriding need to apply the restrictive policy in this instance.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

5.

LBC/14574/J P/00969/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North Registration Date: 12/06/2003 - Listed Building Consent Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Applicant: Mr D Evatt LBC for retention of 2 non-illuminated wall mounted signs Castle Inn, 91 High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301BQ

This report also relates to application number A/1314A/P968/03 (Item No.1)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Signs on this building have previously been the subject of comment from Members and subjective judgement is required as to their impact on the Listed Building.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are minor applications. The processing of the applications has taken nine weeks to date.

The processing of the applications has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of the requirement for Committee determination.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a traditional public house premises situated on the corner of Newport High Street and Mill Street. The property immediately abuts the rear of the footway on both elevations and there are a range of outbuildings which front onto the Mill Street elevation. The building has a two storey brick frontage onto the High Street with a gabled stone elevation to Mill Street.

The area is characterised by traditional commercial premises of mixed styles, mostly incorporating traditional shop fronts at ground floor level. The Castle Inn itself is a distinctive building with traditional style leaded light windows and the main entrance onto the High Street. The application relates to board mounted signs on the front and side elevations.

RELEVANT HISTORY

LBC/14574G - Listed Building Consent granted for external fire escape within rear courtyard dated October 1998.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The applications relate to retention of board mounted signs, one of which is attached to the gable end of the property whilst the other is on the front elevation situated between the ground floor windows. Both sides read "Tapas Bar" and that on the gable elevation has a light blue background whilst the sign on the High Street frontage has a two tone orange background.

The signs which are on the property were previously erected without consent and that on the front elevation was of particular concern as it was a large sign of plastic construction which was considered out of character with the building. Following a meeting with the applicant, this sign has been reduced in size and provided with a traditional timber frame surround to reduce its visual impact and improve its appearance.

The applicant has also confirmed that the use of temporary blackboard style signs on the frontage of the property has now been discontinued.

The signs are not illuminated although there is an overhead spotlight on the gable elevation which, I understand, illuminated a previous sign in this location.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The applications relate to a Grade II Listed Building which is situated within the designated Conservation Area.

Planning Policy Guidance relating to development in the historic environment is contained within Planning Policy Guidance note 15.

Unitary Development Plan policy D5 relates to shop fronts and signs.

Policy B1 relates to alterations to Listed Buildings and policy B6 relates to protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter received from Islandwatch objecting to application as signs are inappropriate for this significant and prominent Listed Building particularly the garish one on the front wall.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The applications now under consideration relate to retention of signs which have been on this property for some time.

As noted earlier in this report, discussions have taken place with the applicant resulting in the sign on the frontage being reduced in size and provided with a traditional frame to improve its visual appearance. The sign on the gable elevation replaces a similar sign which was previously on the gable, albeit at a slightly higher level.

The applications relate to a commercial public house situated within the town centre. The determining factors are therefore considered to be the effect of the signs on the character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building and the overall effect on the character of the designated Conservation Area.

It is acknowledged that the building is in a prominent location and has two street frontages. The character of the property is such that it has no traditional shop front or fascia and wall mounted signs are a type normally acceptable in the circumstances, providing the size, design and location of the signs is compatible with the building and the locality.

In this case, the signs which have been installed are of traditional board construction with moulded timber frames, fitted flush to the face of the building. The signs are not of a high gloss appearance, and although the overall colour and design of the signs is visually prominent, this has to be considered in the context of the commercial character of the town centre and other signs in the locality.

There is an existing hanging bracket sign situated at first floor level on the front elevation immediately above the wall mounted sign which is now under consideration. The applicant has indicated that the signs which are the subject of this application are necessary to draw attention to the provision of food at the public house which is not included within the traditional hanging sign.

Whilst the colour and design of the signs is of a distinctive appearance, I do not consider this to be so serious a visual intrusion as to warrant refusal of the application, bearing in mind the overall commercial character of the locality.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the right set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing property is in a prominent location and the signs would therefore be clearly visible within the area as a whole, the signs are of traditional form and type, are not illuminated and do not have a high gloss finish. Whilst the overall colour and design of the signs is not considered ideal, on balance I do not consider this to be so visually intrusive or out of character as to warrant refusal of the applications in this case. The signs are traditionally located on the elevations of the Grade II Listed Building and do not directly interfere with any historical features on the structure. The sign on the gable elevation replaces a previous sign of similar type and there are various other signs of similar impact in the locality. Given the circumstances outlined above, I consider the signs to be acceptable and in accordance with policies D5, B1 and B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (BOTH APPLICATIONS)

6.	TCP/17180/C P/01233/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Central Registration Date: 18/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Ross Realty Limited Amendments to approved scheme ref: TCP/17180B to alter design of roof 58, Victoria Road, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Councillor Buckle, does not agree to the application being determined under the delegated procedure. His view is that it should not be for the planning department to make aesthetic judgements. If the local people do not object to a mansard roof then it is none of the staff's business to ban it - except, perhaps, in extreme cases. He is not convinced by the reasons put forward to him. The Cowes Town Council, who represent the local residents, have no objection, so why does the department object? Does the department have a better/higher standard than the local residents, none of whom has objected. He has seen the site and its surroundings and is in favour of letting the mansard roof design go ahead.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The day of the committee (12 August) is the last day for determination within the eight week period. The issue of the decision notice will therefore fall outside eight weeks because the application could not be dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site occupied by two storey residential property situated on south eastern side of Victoria Road. The site and its access located approximately 60 metres south east of the junction of Victoria Road with Moorgreen Road and St Mary's Road. Surrounding area characterised by long established residential development, with exception of a small development of new dwellings on land at the rear of the site, accessed from Victoria Road alongside the application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

December 1995 - Approval granted for the conversion of a loft to provide additional living accommodation.

October 2000 - Consent granted for six houses, car parking, alterations of vehicular access on land south east of application site and bounded by the disused railway line which is accessed off St Mary's Road. That consent has been implemented.

August 2001 - Approval granted for the retention of three flats within 58 Victoria Road and a further extension providing three one bedroomed flats at lower ground level, ground level and first floor level and a second floor flat providing two bedroomed accommodation in the roof space, extending over the existing property 58 Victoria Road. This approval resulted in seven flats in all, to be served off a communal hall accessed from the rear with an entrance off Victoria Road at ground floor level.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought to alter the roof shape of the second floor flat within the new extension and over 58 Victoria Road from a traditional gable roof to a mansard roof, in order to provide additional room height and space within the flat.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) gives advice on design issues and at paragraph 17 advises that Local Planning Authority should reject poor designs, particularly where their decisions are supported by clear plan policies or supplementary design guidance. Poor designs may include those inappropriate to their context, for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.

The following UDP policies are considered relevant:-

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

D1 - Standards of Design.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council supports the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Contrary to the views expressed by the Local Member, the Local Planning Authority, through its Development Control Committee and its Officers under delegated procedures, has the responsibility through implementing PPG1 advice from central government and the local policies contained within the UDP, of achieving high standards of design in new development.

In determining this application, Members will not only have to take into account advice in PPG1 quoted above, but also bear in mind UDP policies S6 which expects that all development will be of a high standard of design and particularly D1, which indicates that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Of the criteria set out in the policy the first one is:

"Respect of the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area;"

This area of Victoria Road is characterised mainly by traditional Victorian dwellings with some modern development. The area has been studied in detail and there are no examples within the vicinity of mansard roofs. This element of the development is especially prominent when approaching down Victoria Road and there is considerable concern that the introduction of an alien roof shape such as a mansard will be completely out of character in this location. A second concern is the appearance of the junction of the mansard roof which will have to be "tied in" to the existing gabled roof of the terrace to the north east and the conjunction of these two roof shapes is likely to be awkward and out of context with the general character of roof shapes in the area. Had the original application for use of the roof space proposed and mansard roof as now suggested, I believe it would have been recommended for refusal.

I have no hesitation in recommending refusal, on design grounds, to this application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to policies S6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, and is inappropriate to its context and therefore incompatible with its surroundings.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposed introduction of a mansard roof in this prominent location would represent an intrusive shape of roof, out of character with the surrounding pattern of roof shapes in the area and therefore have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenities and character of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies S6 (All development expected to be of a high standard of design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

7.

TCP/20109/G P/01184/03 Parish/Name: Arreton Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 03/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Bridgeguild Ltd Demolition of outbuildings; outline for 5 dwellings & one light industrial unit; refurbishment of existing building to form light industrial unit land rear of Dove Farm House and 2 Dovecotes forming part of Merston Valley Nurseries, Merstone Lane Merstone, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at this Committee a decision will have been made within the prescribed period.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the eastern side of Merstone Lane opposite the junction with Chapel Lane and has overall dimensions of approximately 100 metres by 70 metres, of irregular shape, including land between and adjoining residential property fronting Merstone Lane. The site is presently partially occupied by now derelict glasshouses and ancillary buildings and there is an existing vehicular access off Merstone Lane opposite Chapel Lane. This part of the site is adjoined by a two storey property known as Valley House, fronting Merstone Lane and the majority of the land is located behind properties fronting Merstone Lane with open, agricultural fields to both north and south of the frontage development.

This part of Merstone is characterised by a ribbon of development fronting the east side of Merstone Lane. The area is predominantly rural except for the settlement which is of mixed design, plot sizes and ages.

Merstone is low lying and generally marshy, located in the Arreton Valley in an area which is best defined as an agricultural landscape.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline planning permission for residential development was refused on the site in June 2001 for reasons of development contrary to policy regarding residential development in rural areas and on grounds of inadequate access.

A later application for the erection of nine houses on this site formed part of a package comprising three applications, submitted by the same applicant as an 'enabling' form of development. The application was included on the agenda for the Development Control Committee in February of this year but was withdrawn following a recommendation for refusal. It was felt that the proposals were contrary to policy regarding residential development in rural areas and no justification had been shown to set aside the presumption against refusal to justify such a development.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application has been received as a "stand alone" development, seeking outline planning permission for five dwellings and for the erection of light industrial unit and the refurbishment of an existing building to form another light industrial unit. Whilst outline consent is sought, siting, means of access and landscaping are proposed to be considered at this stage.

The plans show the five dwellings to be located on the road frontage to Merstone Lane and are described as "infill" development comprising two pairs of semi-detached houses and a detached house, each unit of about 90 square metres and an access road installed directly opposite Chapel Lane. The scheme incorporates visibility splays and new path in front of the dwellings. The access road shown to pass into the tract of land to the rear of the site, a tract of about 100 metres by 30 metres. The building to be refurbished is located on the southern side with a right of way and parking area and the new building located on the north side of the access road which incorporates a hammer head for turning. It is also proposed to provide a private system of drainage with location and specification yet to be decided. It is, however, clear that the applicant owns a substantial tract of land behind the application site, in the former Merstone Valley Nurseries site therefore siting of such a plant would be possible.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Strategic policy S1 states that new development will be concentrated within the existing urban areas. Policy S2 seeks to utilise brownfield sites; policy S4 seeks to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

Policy G1 expects new developments to be located within existing settlements defined by development envelopes and policy G2 seeks to resist proposals for development which would lead to a consolidation of scattered, dispersed or low density development in the countryside. Policy G5 details those developments which will be considered acceptable outside the designated development envelopes and policy H4 requires new residential development on sites which are not allocated for housing only where they are within designated development envelopes. Policy H9 details those examples where residential development outside development envelopes would be acceptable including the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses.

Policy E1 supports new developments which provide for employment providing they are suitably located and accessible. Policy E8 accepts developments outside development envelopes where they are of benefit to the rural economy subject to certain safeguards.

The site is not under any specific allocation. It is outside of any designated development envelope. Merstone is not in the AONB; the site is not near a SSSI or SINC.

PPG7 (The Countryside Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) gives general advice in relation to the support and diversification of agricultural activities whilst maintaining the character of the countryside by finding new ways of enriching the quality of the whole countryside, whilst accommodating appropriate development in order to compliment the protection which designations offer.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer considers that unconditional approval of part of the application sites for B1 industrial use potentially could cause disamenity to neighbouring land uses including those of the adjoining residents and because the specific uses of the B1 units are not known, recommends conditions if approved.

Contaminated Land Officer also recommends conditions if approved pointing out the possibility of the site being contaminated.

Highway Engineers recommend refusal on grounds of inadequate access and inadequate turning on site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Arreton Parish Council object on grounds that industrial units are too close to residential use; that the land is liable to flooding with inherent drainage difficulties; inadequate parking on site; that there should be no access to East Lane and that the development would create a precedent for further development which could be described as backland development.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE object on grounds of precedent and development contrary to policy; that the development includes inadequate parking and will generate excessive traffic; that the inclusion of two light industrial units is an inappropriate development in this rural area.

Twelve letters of objection from local residents on grounds of dangerous access and increased traffic; inadequate drainage and flooding problems; adverse effect of the introduction of an industrial unit; development outside the development envelope and therefore contrary to policy; inadequate turning area on site; incompatible uses, increased flooding problems caused by further hard surfacing and loss of agricultural land which would create a precedent for further, similar developments.

Two letters of support citing that with the nursery gone the buildings will fall into an unsightly and poor state of disrepair; their infill residential on the frontages acceptable providing family homes that are needed; an improved access with privacy maintained for adjoining properties and development which would prevent the further deterioration of the existing buildings.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received but no crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This is an application for residential development of land situated outside of the designated development envelope. It also seeks consent for refurbishment of a building and its change of use to a light industrial unit and erection of a new light industrial unit but no details have been submitted in the case of the conversion or the new structure.

The determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and the appropriateness of the alterations to the vehicular access and details of parking which have been submitted.

The essential difference between this and the previous schemes submitted, one of which was refused, one of which was withdrawn is that the residential development is no longer proposed to encroach into that land behind the frontage tract or the properties fronting Merstone Lane and, in the case of the second application, this is proposed to be a stand alone development and is not, for planning purposes, to be considered as an enabling development. The industrial units do, however, project beyond the general ribbon of development fronting Merstone Lane.

The agents contend that the proposed residential part of the proposals now form infill development which would be permitted by virtue of policy H9 and, indeed, it should be pointed out that the site sizes are not too dissimilar from the size of sites in that ribbon of development fronting the east side of Merstone Lane. In addition it should be pointed out that the development comprises five comparatively small residential properties of approximately 90 square metres each, housing units which would be of the sort which are required for first time buyers or lesser value properties.

The meaning of infill is the filling of a gap within an otherwise built up frontage which is generally taken to be a single plot within a frontage which is comparatively and comparatively densely developed. Otherwise, given the scope to infill with such numbers, such a development could encourage further similar proposals which cumulatively would inevitably change the character of the area.

Presently the density of the development on the east side of Merstone Lane is low, indeed could be described as sporadic with the main part of Merstone Village being located to the south of the junction known as Merstone Cross (the junction of Merstone Lane with Chapel Lane). Under the circumstances I consider the proposal should not be described as infill but intensification of residential development which is unacceptable in an unallocated rural area.

A re-use of redundant rural buildings with appropriate adaptation for employment purposes falls within policy C17 which allows for the re-use and adaptation of a redundant rural building and its use for B1 purposes, i.e. light industrial use, should be one which could be carried on within a residential area without detriment to it. I do not consider this element of the proposal to be unacceptable but the erection of a new industrial building outside a designated development envelope is again contrary to the policies of the UDP.

Despite the agent's assertion that access difficulties have been ironed out, the Highway Engineers have recommended refusal on grounds of inadequate access and inadequate turning area on site. In visibility terms whilst the frontage of the sites to the north of the new access are within the applicants' control and the visibility splay can be provided, the land to the south is not and the splay would cross land outside their control.

Inadequate turning has been provided and the Engineers consider that there should be nine car parking spaces for the industrial units and a further ten car parking spaces for the dwellings. Twenty three car parking spaces have been shown for the whole of the development but most of this is dedicated to the industrial use. In addition the Engineers consider that inadequate turning area has been provided to enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear, relating to two car parking spaces without turning at the back of the northernmost of the proposed residential units.

Under the circumstances, I do not consider there is any other course other than to recommend refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

This proposal is a straightforward residential development without an enabling claim. The application therefore falls to be considered on the basis of the principle of residential development in the countryside which is clearly contrary to policy and, in this instance, is not one which could be justified as an exception to the normal determination. In addition the difficulties previously identified with access have not been overcome and, in terms of one particular part, adequate turning has not been provided on the site. The development is therefore contrary to policies S1, S4, G1, G2, G4 and H9 and contrary to policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of development and would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages), G2 (Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development Envelopes) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2	Dwelling Contrary to Development Plan - Z03C

3	The access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

4	Inadequate Turning Area - Z11F

8.

TCP/22165/C P/00795/03 Parish/Name: Gatcombe Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 16/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: Rayner Properties 2 pairs of semi-detached houses with garages, (plots 2,3,4 & 5) land between Brook Cottage and Rome Cottage, Main Road, Chillerton, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor submission involving development which is partially outside the development envelope boundary defined on the Unitary Development Plan and, therefore, raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken seventeen weeks to date and has gone beyond the eight week period for determination due to negotiations in respect of design aspects of the proposed dwellings and Case Officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to irregular shaped area of land located on western side of Main Road, Chillerton, at northern end of the village. Application site is part of a larger area which was formerly curtilage to the waterworks building located to north west of application site. Ground rises in north westerly direction away from the main road with access road to the waterworks running through the land. Boundaries of site with Main Road and property to north are defined by dense natural growth.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/22165-P/00440/97 - Outline planning permission for two dwellings and garages conditionally approved in August 1997.

TCP/22165/A-P/00856/00 - Renewal of outline planning permission for two dwellings and garages conditionally approved in August 2000.

TCP/22165/B -P/02363/02 - Approval of reserved matters for two detached houses with garages conditionally approved February 2003. Work in respect of this approval has commenced insofar as it relates to the detached dwelling on plot 1, on the southern side of the access road to the waterworks.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for two pairs of semi-detached houses with garages. Each of the dwellings would provide a similar accommodation comprising lounge/diner, kitchen and WC or shower-room at ground floor level, two bedrooms, study and bathroom at first floor level and bedroom with en suite facilities in roof space. Three of the dwellings would have detached garages with one having driveway with parking space alongside. All of the dwellings would be served by driveways off the access road to the waterworks to the north west of the application site. Submitted plans indicate that dwellings would be constructed of natural stone, with brick quoins and dressing around windows, under a natural slate roof.

Subsequent to submission of the application, discussions took place with the applicant's agent resulting in the submission of revised plans. These plans showed a reduction in the width of the windows in the gable ends of the properties and alterations to fenestration of side elevation of dwelling closest to Main Road, including centralising porch at ground floor level and introduction of windows at first floor level. Plans also showed introduction of chimneys to both pairs of houses. Further revised plans were subsequently submitted showing a reduction in the pitch of the roof of the dwellings, reducing the overall height of the buildings from 9.4 metres to approximately 8.9 metres. Confirmation was also received that the dwelling on plot 4 would not have a garage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The development boundary for Chillerton bisects the site with the front half of the site, closest to the road, within the defined settlement whilst the rear half of the site is outside the boundary. The site is also located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 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 for development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

H9 - Residential development outside development boundary.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Developments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Planning and Information Officer submitted comments in respect of previous application suggesting that higher density could be achieved through smaller units to accommodate local housing need. She comments that current proposal, whilst increasing the density from two to five has more than doubled the mass of development and also retained the large executive style design. Furthermore, she considers that the layout is also the beginning of an estate type development fed off a cul de sac with potential for further development on plots 1 and 2. In general, she feels that this would be very damaging to the overall character of Chillerton and should be avoided within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As a consequence, she is of the opinion that a more suitable design and layout would include the following:

Smaller units (two/three bed) achieved through an overall reduction in mass of the properties.

Semis on plots 4 and 5 orientated so that the front elevation is more visible from the road when approaching Chillerton from Newport, to create a better street scene rather than viewing a gable end.

The semis on plots 2 and 3 moved further up the site so as to create plot sizes more proportionate to the size of the building mass, and more similar to surrounding properties.

Internal chimneys incorporated into the design of the properties.

Use of natural slate and stone in construction of properties.

Oak timber in porch design and timber sash windows.

Boundary treatment and landscaping to respect and enhance the rural character of the village.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gatcombe Parish Council object to application on grounds that site should only be developed with two plots on frontage of road and that current application is seen as a "back door" to backland development. Reference is made in a paper accompanying their comments that "through UDP process, proposal was forwarded to develop whole of frontage on eastern side of Main Road from north to south and that this was successfully defended through the process and no modification was made to the development boundary." Reference is also made to policy H5 of the plan which would support proposals for infill residential development within development envelopes where they will not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and the surrounding area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted six letters, two from the same address, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Development boundary cuts through centre of development in both the original and the current proposal. Proposal is departure from UDP.

Adverse impact to detriment of amenities of neighbouring properties.

Adverse impact on character of area.

Outline consent originally sought for three dwellings subsequently reduced to two in order to restrict developments to frontage of site.

Access to site located close to bend - increased use of access would create hazard to highway users, both pedestrian and vehicles.

Properties would be prominent in the area due to contours of the land.

Submitted plans do not accurately show the full extent of tree cover. Issue of landscaping should not be left to a condition of any planning permission.

The buildings do not have any relationship to each other and do not conform to any recognisable building line. Position of garages also results in poor layout.

Space would be left between buildings leading to wasted space and disparity in plot sizes.

Properties do not respect the local vernacular or the scale and mass of buildings in the village.

Gap between main body of village and the group of outlying dwellings to north should be maintained.

The design and layout of the dwellings would have an adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building.

Proposal will result in pressure for removal of trees which do not presently benefit from protection causing adverse effect on adjacent Listed Building.

Development intrudes into steeply rising open ground.

One objector requests that copies of his letter are made available to Members when considering the application and not an edited summary of the points included within the body of any report. Members will be aware that it is standard practice to summarise points of objection raised by third parties in respect of development proposals and I am satisfied that the grounds for objection detailed above adequately reflect the points raised by local residents. However, a copy of the objector's letter can be made available to Members on request.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether development would detract from the character of the locality, the setting of the adjacent listed building and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Site is bisected by the development boundary, as defined the Unitary Development Plan, with forwardmost half of the site, closest to road, within the defined settlement. Planning permission has previously been granted for a large detached dwelling within this site, forming part of a scheme which also included dwelling on southern side of access road to waterworks which is presently under construction. A small part of the approved dwelling on the north side of the access road, together with virtually entire rear garden, would be outside the development envelope boundary. In terms of current proposal, whilst majority of the development would be within the development envelope, the westernmost dwelling, i.e. one half of the pair of semis furthest from the road, together with its garden area would be wholly outside the boundary. However, the site is amongst group of dwellings at northern end of village and the waterworks building to west of the application site is a relatively substantial building occupying an elevated position. Therefore, in terms of landscape impact, development will not encroach into an area of open countryside. Having regard to these factors I am satisfied that approval of application would not prejudice policies and aims of the Unitary Development Plan which seek to ensure that development is located within the defined settlements and to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

Whilst noting the comments of the AONB Planning and Information Officer, I do not consider that development resembles an estate layout and I am satisfied that it is compatible with the general arrangement of dwellings within this part of the village which does not follow an identifiable pattern. With regard to suggestion that plots 2 and 3 should be moved further up site to create plot sizes more compatible with surround properties, this would push the development further outside the development boundary. Whilst the westernmost dwelling is currently outside the development boundary, I consider that further development beyond this unit should be resisted.

I am satisfied that the design adopted for the proposed dwellings incorporates features reflecting the more traditional cottage style architecture which can be found in the locality and that, in general terms, the proposal conforms with the design criteria specified in the Isle of Wight Countryside Design Summary and that development would involve use of quality materials compatible with surrounding properties. Although concern has been expressed regarding impact of the garages incorporated within the proposal and the urbanising effect that this would have, I consider that, having regard to their location within the development, set back from the frontage of the dwellings, they will not have a significant or unacceptable impact to the detriment of the overall appearance of the development. As a result of negotiations with applicant's agent, the fenestration to side elevation of dwelling closest to Main Road has been altered to incorporate additional features, including windows at first floor level, resulting in an overall improvement in the appearance of the dwelling as seen from the main road when entering the village. However, it should also be noted that buildings would be partially screened by natural growth along roadside boundary of site.

Property immediately to north of application site is a Listed Building and concern has been expressed that development would adversely impact of setting of this property. In this respect, Conservation Assistant has expressed view that, having regard to presence of a hedge/landscape screen between the site and the adjacent property, development would not adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building, providing this screen is maintained. However, it was considered that the plans which accompanied the original submission did not accurately represent the natural growth screen along this boundary. This matter has been addressed on the revised plans. It is also considered that the natural growth along the boundary would provide a screen between the proposed dwellings and the adjacent property thereby preventing any unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. I consider that, should Members be minded to approve application, permission should be subject to a condition requiring retention of this feature.

It has been suggested that the site forms an important gap between the main body of the village and the outlying dwellings to the north and, therefore, should remain undeveloped. However, planning permission has already been granted for two detached houses either side of the access road to the waterworks, close to the frontage with the main road. In any event, I do not consider that the gap makes a significant contribution to the character of the area or that this issue would provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the current application.

Access road to waterworks which is also intended to serve the proposed development is located on outside of bend with relatively good visibility in both directions. Highway Engineer has recommended conditions, should application be approved, and, in the absence of any objection from him, I do not consider that refusal of application on highway grounds would be sustainable.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicants to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference

with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, notwithstanding the fact that the development would, in part, be outside the development boundary, having regard to the planning history of the site and the pattern of development in the locality that the proposal is, on balance, acceptable in principle and will not prejudice the policies and aims of the Council's Unitary Development Plan regarding development in the countryside. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the scale, design, layout and general appearance of the development is acceptable and will not detract from the character of the locality, the setting of the adjacent listed building or amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Submission of samples - S03

3

No existing hedges, hedgerows or hedgerow trees on the boundaries of the site shall be removed, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All hedges, hedgerows or hedgerow trees on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of works on the site by the erection of a 1.2 m minimum height chestnut paling fence to BS 1722 Part 4 securely mounted on 1.2 m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground or other agreed protection along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any parts of hedges, hedgerows or hedgerow trees removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges, hedgerows or hedgerow trees and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees/shrubs and/or other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: 1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree. Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No placement or storage of material; (b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of bonfires. (e)No physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground levels. (h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6

Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no freestanding buildings, structures, walls or fences of any kind, other than those permitted pursuant to condition 5, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7

Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B, C, E, F and H of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8

All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to construction of the dwellings proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11

No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding one metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

12

Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13	Provision of turning area - K40

9.

TCP/24820/B P/00548/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton Registration Date: 20/03/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: J Siddy Esq Change of use of 1st floor from ancillary accommodation for chemists to self-contained flat; single storey rear extension to provide enlarged chemists with terrace over; external staircase on side elevation; vehicular access & parking, (revised scheme) 43 High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334LU

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Ward Member Councillor Abraham. The request was made after application submitted if the Officer recommendation is refusal. The reason for this request is:

6. Local Member does not agree with recommendation.

7. Proposal will improve highway safety.

8. Create disabled access for shop.

9. Will bring property in line with other properties in location.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken twenty weeks. The delay has been due to awaiting further information from the Agent which has still not been submitted and Local Member requesting further consultation with Highways Department.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The property is semi-detached with Chemists at ground floor and ancillary accommodation at first. There is lay-by parking immediately outside the front of the premises and public car park to the rear with no existing parking within the application site. This is a mixed commercial/residential area, the chemists business within Wootton High Street serving local need.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/24820 - Change of use of first floor from ancillary accommodation for chemist to self contained flat; single storey rear extension to provide enlarged chemists with terrace over; external staircase on side elevation; vehicular access and parking. Refused July 2002.

TCP/24820/A - Change of use of first floor from ancillary accommodation for chemists to self contained flat; single storey rear extension to provide enlarged chemists with terrace over; external staircase on side elevation (revised scheme). Conditional approval October 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The proposal for use of the first floor as self contained flat involves construction of an external staircase on the east elevation; the accommodation will consist of lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and terrace. An attic store and small bedroom is proposed at second floor. The second part of the proposal is for a single storey rear extension to enlarge the chemists projecting 8.6 metres from the rear wall, 5.565 metres in width, designed to match in with the existing building. The third element to the application is the provision of two car parking spaces in the rear garden of the premises which will be accessed off the Brannon Way public car park.

Details to show the loss of car parking space in the car park and the correct certification service was requested from the Agent on 23 May 2003 but has not been received at the time of report writing.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application is sited within the development envelope for Wootton. Wootton has no defined town centre or retail boundary. Policies G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages, G10 - Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses, D1 - Standards of Design, and TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines are considered relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends refusal; Highways Department have an immediate presumption against any application for the creation of a new right of way onto a public car park. The grounds for refusal are loss of three public parking spaces to provide two private, creation of right of way across public car park and loss of control of any future development of the car park.

Property Services have no comment as Car Parks Section are client.

Council's Car Parks Manager confirms that Council would not grant permission for this access which would result in the loss of three public parking spaces.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council raise no objection and have copied a letter sent to Property Services Section which summarised confirms local chemist is important contributor to village life and that improvement works, plus a rear vehicle access to the business is of great importance, so much so that without it the existence of the chemist in the village could be at stake. Parish Members feel that an exception in this case should be made because of the importance of the chemist to the village and advantages a rear access from Brannon Way car park would provide. Although parking spaces would be lost in the car park, the situation with regard to loading and unloading by the chemist delivery vehicles in the lay-by outside the chemist would be lessened. Delivery could be made easily and safely at the rear access resulting in improved road safety at the lay-by in the High Street as well as freeing the lay-by for valued car parking space for shoppers. Loss of three parking spaces to provide rear access to the chemist is a small price to pay for its guaranteed future.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Wootton within a small parade of businesses and a mixed commercial/residential area. Main planning considerations relate to impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and locality in general, whether design of alterations are in keeping with original property and Highway policy considerations.

In assessing Local Member and Parish Council comments, it is accepted that the chemist is an important asset to the local community. Given the proximity of the premises to the lay-by in Wootton High Street and the available public car park to the rear, the main consideration is whether the benefits of providing two private spaces for the application site outweighs the wider considerations of loss of public car parking space. This site is on a major bus route with lay-by and public parking in very close proximity and the proposals therefore conflict with parking policies and guidelines within the Unitary Development Plan.

If Members were minded to approve this application, it is also relevant that from the consultations carried out it would not be practical to implement as the Council as landowner would not permit private access off the public car park.

With regard the design and siting of the extension; this is a large footprint but when viewed against extensions in the immediate locality it is considered acceptable and presenting minimal impact as well as supporting the operation of the chemist. The residential accommodation at first floor, the new external staircase and terrace are acceptable in terms of design and siting, the terrace presenting minimum impact in terms of affect on neighbouring privacy. Members should be aware that a similar scheme without the vehicular access and parking was approved in October 2002 which could still be implemented and it is not considered there are any sustainable reasons to refuse the extension and alterations element of the application. It is only the parking that is contentious.

In summary the Highway Engineer's recommendation carries substantial weight on policy grounds and the proposal would prejudice the future potential development of the car park. Local Member and Parish Council concern does not outweigh policy considerations and application needs to be assessed on current policy standards.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations the proposal in respect of the vehicular access and parking and loss of public parking is considered to conflict with Parking Policies and Guidelines, prejudices the future potential development of the Brannon Way car park and raises concerns in respect of precedence.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposed access and two private parking spaces would result in the loss of three public parking spaces and have an adverse affect on the use and management of Brannon Way public car park. Therefore, the provision and use of private parking spaces at this location is considered to be contrary to policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Unitary Development Plan.

2

The proposal is likely to prejudice any future comprehensive redevelopment of the public car park and therefore conflicts with the intention of PPG3 Housing and PPG13 Transport and is therefore contrary to policy S11 (Land Use Policies and Proposals to Reduce the Impact of and Reliance on the Private Car) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3

The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist further similar proposals, the cumulative effect of which would create an adverse impact on the character of the area and management of the public car park. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D1 (Standards of Design) and policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/24833/A P/01192/03 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill Registration Date: 19/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: N & H Maddocks Demolition of dwelling & store; construction of detached house & garage Linnet Mead, Redhill Lane, Sandford, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383ET

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This report is before the Development Control Committee at the request of the local Member, Councillor D Yates as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure as he feels the proposal is satisfactory.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at this meeting the application will have been processed within the eight week period.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located on the west side of Redhill Lane a few metres from its junction with the A3020 at Sandford. The site was a former market garden or small holding comprising approximately 1.13 hectares of land which falls gently to the north and is well grown in around its boundaries. The dwelling on site is located fairly close to Redhill Lane, approximately 18 metres back from the highway and comprises a chalet style bungalow constructed in artificial stone under a brown concrete tiled roof. In front of the building is a corrugated steel sheet clad building used last for storage and to the south derelict greenhouses. The area is predominantly rural, and area of scattered development, a mix of building styles and ages in relatively generous plot sizes. There is a further dwelling to the south known as Valley Cottage, and Redhill Lane then continues into open countryside.

RELEVANT HISTORY

June 2002, extensions approved to existing building comprising a front porch, a rear extension to form a lounge with en-suite bedroom above.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for demolition of dwelling and construction of detached house and garage.

Plans show existing dwelling to have a footprint of 87 square metres and floor area of 149 square metres (the extensions approved in 2002 have not been implemented). The plans also show the proposed dwelling as a fairly conventional two storey building under a hipped roof, clad in plain tiles with the first floor also tile hung and a red brick ground floor. A covered way leading to a treble garage located on the southern side. The footprint, including the garage total 215 square metres and a total floor area of 340 square metres. The height of the existing building, to its ridge is 6.2 metres; the height of the proposed building is shown as 8.1 metres.

The plan shows the proposed dwelling to occupy the same siting as the existing (except for the additional elements).

It is intended to utilise the existing access, to demolish the store in front of the building and put in a new driveway to serve the new treble garage with pedestrian access to the front door of the new dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within the designated AONB and adjoins a Site of Interest to Nature Conservation, situated to the west. Redhill Lane is not a classified highway.

Site is well outside any designated development envelope so policies S1, S4, G1, G2, G5 and H9 apply directly.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved, requesting provision of visibility splays, turning space particularly.

AONB Officer considers development proposed to be excessive and points out development is contrary to various policies including Policy C2 (AONB) and recommends refusal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council recommends approval as they feel the development will enhance the area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None and the time of writing.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no comments have been received, however, no crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Essentially this application seeks permission to demolish an existing dwelling located in an area of countryside and replace it with a new one. If this site were undeveloped, residential development of a new dwelling in this location would be directly contrary to planning policy and the only mitigating factor in this instance is the existence of Policy H9 which states:-

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

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

There are other caveats to Policy H9 relating to agricultural dwellings, conversion of rural buildings, tourism uses, locally affordable housing schemes or infill but none of these apply.

It will be seen from the Details of Application above that the footprint or ground coverage of the existing building is 87 square metres and that it is intended to increase this to 215 square metres and that the total accommodation is proposed to be increased from 149 square metres to 340 square metres. In addition the existing building has a ridge height of 6.2 to its gabled ridge and that the proposed dwelling will increase this height to 8.1 metres to its hipped ridge. Accommodation and ground coverage are both more than doubled and the height is substantially increased by almost two metres and when a direct comparison is made between the existing dwelling and that proposed, it is clear that the development does not sit comfortably within the parameters to which Policy H9 relates as it could by no means be described as being of similar scale and mass to the dwelling which it replaces. Such a substantial increase in mass would not enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which the site lies and therefore I cannot support the proposal and recommend refusal accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

This is a former horticultural unit now lying derelict. The dwelling seems sound but the site is outside any development envelope and therefore normal countryside policies will apply. Policy H9 allows for a one for one replacement, provided the new dwelling is of "similar scale and mass". This clearly is not the case as the site coverage and accommodation provision are more than doubled and the height of the building is proposed to be increased by almost two metres. Despite the fact that an extension has been approved at the rear of the existing building, the proposal is far in excess of that in terms of mass and is therefore a development which is contrary to the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Dwelling Contrary to Development Plan - Z03C

2	Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Z12B

11.

TCP/25352/A P/01081/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton Registration Date: 28/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Thomas Conservatory; single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation (revised scheme) 14 Glendale Close, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334RF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor Mr Abraham, has requested that this application comes before the Development Control Committee as he considers the proposals to be in keeping within the area, and will be well screened.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken eleven weeks to date. A determination at this time would mean the application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because of the need for the Committee consideration and outstanding consultations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application site is a detached dwelling within good sized curtilage on northern side of Glendale Close, a cul de sac which is characterised by fairly substantial detached dwellings, of various styles. Glendale Close is on western side of Station Road approximately 140 metres south of the junction of Station Road and Gravel Pit Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/25352 - Consent refused March 2003 for conservatory and single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation on grounds of proximity to the boundary, excessive size, out of scale and character with the dwelling house itself and contrary to policies D1 (Standard of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight UDP. Also considered that the proposal did not represent a subservient addition to the property. Proposal would have also resulted in the loss of three TPO trees on site, therefore contrary to policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland).

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for a single storey side extension. This is to provide a kitchen, larder and utility room. Projecting from the rear of proposed extension to the north is a conservatory. Dimensions of the extension are 10.9 metres in length with an overall depth of 5.8 metres. The overall height of the extension that incorporates a hipped roof is 5.5 metres to ridge level. The conservatory is some 6 metres by 5 metres with overall height of 3.6 metres.

The application is of the same floor area as the previous refusal but the plans now indicate a hipped roof to the side extension and a pitched roof to the conservatory with a gable end. The submitted plans still indicate the conservatory being 0.5 metres from the boundary at the closest point.

The land to the side of the house slopes in a westerly direction. The boundary of the site on the west comprises of fencing and hedging. There is a garage forward of the dwelling house and numerous trees providing a screen from the road.

Dwelling to the west is at a lower ground level and a fair distance from proposal.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site located within Development Envelope for Wootton adjacent to Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Policy S6 (All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design), Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are all relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has made the following comment:

"I am willing to accept the loss of T6 if consent is granted but the loss of other trees on the site, especially T8, T9 and T17 is to be resisted. The applicant made an application to remove these three trees on 7 April 2003 giving as a reason: 'Will overshadow proposed conservatory in time, overshadow will markedly increase as tree grows towards maturity. Tree is still only semi mature.' Therefore his statement in the agent's letter of 23 May 2003 that this application now only seeks to remove T6 must be viewed with some skepticism. If consent is granted, I recommend that included in that consent will be consent to fell T6, T8, T9 and T17 subject to suitable replacements being planted. Should also consider the likelihood that if this application is successful there will certainly be future applications to remove several other trees in the garden and prune those very large trees in the adjacent woodland. If the extension is built consent will probably be given for such removals. The application should be considered in this light."

The Tree and Landscape Officer continues to say that the reasons for retaining the trees as given for a reason for refusal on the previous application are still relevant.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wootton Parish Council raises no objections to the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

No third party representations have been received, however the application was accompanied by supporting documentation from neighbours in Glendale Close and Gravel Pit Road.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle and whether the proposed extension is of an appropriate size, scale and design or would detract from the character of the locality and amenities of neighbouring residential properties and the effect of the proposal on the protected trees.

I am satisfied that the dwelling could accommodate a suitably sized extension. I therefore do not consider there to be any objection in principle for an extension. Proposal will introduce a single storey side extension occupying a similar size frontage as the house itself and from the rear of the extension, a conservatory is proposed. Policy D1 states that development will be permitted only where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should be sympathetic in scale, form and siting and be of a mass which is compatible with surrounding buildings. Policy H7 states that planning applications for extensions or alterations to existing residential properties will be permitted where they of an appropriate size, scale and design to the property and where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

Whilst I appreciate that the roof designs of the extension have been amended to decrease the mass, it is not significant enough to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

In considering the effects on the neighbouring property, 13 Glendale Close, I consider that the property is a significant distance away for any adverse effects to be minimised. In considering the effect on the amenities and the character of the area in general, the site is relatively well screened, however, I am of the opinion that the extensions are out of scale with the existing dwelling and will present an adverse affect on the visual amenity of the area. The fact that the proposal will be screened from the street scene does not make it acceptable in design terms.

If approved the application would be likely to result in the loss of numerous TPO trees, this in itself would be contrary to policy C12 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered the proposal conflicts with D1, H7, and C12 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan in respect of the scale, design, the effect on the amenities of the area and the loss of protected trees.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposed side extension, because of its position close to the boundary of the property, would be an intrusive addition, out of scale and character with the existing dwelling and have a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenity of the locality and would be contrary to policies D1 (Standard of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2

The proposed extensions by reason of excessive size and mass in relation to the original dwelling house presents an over development of the site, and will introduce additions that are out of scale in character with this and surrounding dwellings. The proposals do not represent a subservient addition to the property, and would therefore result in the detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the locality and would be contrary to policy H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3

The proposed extension will facilitate the loss of the trees on the site T6, T8, T9 and T17 which will conflict with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as these trees help to protect the wood to the north of the dwelling known as Quarrels Copse which is an ancient wood and a Site of Important Nature Conservation (C219) and is protected by Medina Borough Council (Wootton Bridge No.1) Tree Order 1980 Ref (TPO/1980/9) by reason of reducing winds and helping to keep a shaded microclimate.

12.

TCP/25587 P/00904/03 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 13/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: Airwave MM02 Ltd Telecommunications installation comprising 25m high monopole structure, 3 no. four-stack dipole antennae & 1 no. GPS antenna, 1 no. 600mm microwave dish & associated equipment enclosed by stock proof fence land at Woodlands Vale Farm, Oakhill Road, Seaview, PO34

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Team Leader in consultation with Local Member.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is an "other" application. The processing of this application has taken 13 weeks to date, this being the earliest Committee date following Team Leader's consultation with Local Member.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposed site of installation is located in north east corner of field which forms part of Woodlands Vale Farm situated on the western side of Oakhill Road, Seaview. The field slopes down from south to north and east to north west. Immediately to the rear of the proposed installation is a mature high backdrop of trees and a mature hedge exists on part of the south eastern boundary to the rear of residential properties.

There is tree protection by way of Area Order on the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The proposal comprises a 25 metre high monopole structure supporting 3 four - stack dipole antennae and 1 GPS antenna with 1 600mm microwave dish - overall height 27.4 m. Associated equipment cabin would be located at base of tower, surrounded by a 1.8 m high chain-link fence, encompassed by a wooden stock proof fence.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is outside any defined development envelope boundary within a designated local park/garden. Policies G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements, B10 - Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest, U17 - Telecommunications Facilities are considered relevant. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 17) and PPG8 - Telecommunications are also relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer confirms no highway implications.

Senior Countryside Officer confirms that the siting of the mast is unlikely to adversely impact on the trees but it is important to ensure that the roots are not damaged during construction.

Isle of Wight Gardens Trust comment no objection in principle but draws attention to inaccuracies in application details, proximity to residential property, should it be located further north west and suggest conditions to include maintenance of existing trees and planting of new trees to ensure continuous tree cover.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Seaview Parish Council object: proximity to residential properties, visual impact with excessive height - no plans to disguise, proximity to Priory Bay mast. Foregoing excludes consideration of health issues; request guidelines if available.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Pondwell Residents Association concerned regarding visual intrusion but recognise masts necessary. Requests mast be disguised as effectively as possible.

CPRE raises concern of lack of strategic plan, sensitive site, excessive height. Refers to ODPM Code of Best Practice and requests Traffic Light Rating.

Seven letters of objection from local neighbours on grounds of proximity to residential, visual intrusion, excessive height and size, effect on neighbouring security and privacy, loss of view, health risks, effect on trees/landscape/red squirrels, devaluation of properties. Out of character and inappropriate to parkland setting. Effect on nearby tourism attraction. Inaccuracies in application details, questions height of adjacent trees and questions whether proper search of area taken place. Tree design more appropriate. Special dispensation should not be given because application for police. Request site visit by Members.

Supports improvement in communications by emergency services.

Further letter from one of the objectors following meeting with Local Member; maintains general objection to proposal and confirms in order to find a practical solution would not object to application provided mast relocated approximately 30 metres northwest from original proposal, minimal branch lopping to be supervised by Council, surrounding trees be protected by Preservation Orders. Suggest tree design mast, height of mast to be less than one metre above the existing tree line so that only antennae visible, base station should be surrounded by plants and wooden fencing, structure removed when no longer required, future use of mast to be controlled by Council so that peak radiation power is no greater than maximum shown in current application.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Proposal is for police communication system. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 17), places a duty on all Local Planning Authorities to consider crime and disorder implications in carrying out their duty.

EVALUATION

The siting of the mast is set against a backdrop of mature trees. The nearest residential property's garden boundary is approximately 20 metres from the installation site. The determining factors in considering this application are whether the proposed installation would be visually intrusive to the detriment of the amenities and character of the area and whether the technical constraints associated with this type of development and the obligations imposed on the operator outweighs any planning objection to the proposal.

Policy U17 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan confirms that the Council need to be satisfied that the sharing of any existing installation is not technically feasible and that within designated areas of landscape, nature conservation, scientific or historic interest, such developments will not be permitted unless there is a compelling technical justification and no suitable site or sites outside the designation. The Council will expect the site chosen and design to be visually technically the least harmful that can be achieved.

Advice and guidance on telecommunications development is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications). The guidance advises that planning authorities are encouraged to develop an understanding of the needs and technical problems of telecommunications development and are advised to take into account all material considerations and that applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modern telecommunications.

Proposals of this nature invariably attract concerns regarding radiation safety and this has been the subject of extensive research. It is accepted that the perceived health risk associated with type of development could be a material consideration when determining any planning application. In view of Government guidance, the advice from the National Radiological Protection Board and the Health and Safety Executive and other associated bodies and the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that mobile phones and the base stations propose a long term public health hazard, it is one which should be given appropriate weight but would not presently provide a sustainable reason for refusal. The current application conforms with the ICNIRP Guidelines. These guidelines limit public exposure to electromagnetic fields. PPG8 reaffirms the advice that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards.

The application was accompanied by information in support of the proposal including predictions of coverage and the coverage provided from the existing site at Priory Bay and the consequence of having no site in the area. Initial investigation was carried out into the possibility of site sharing but no other appropriate sites were located in area. The other sites that were looked at were Crusader Centre, Westbrook, Oakhill Road, Seaview and another siting within Woodlands Vale Farm. Details submitted with application indicate that the public safety network is extremely site specific, with high coverage levels required to ensure that the police in this area have constant radio coverage.

During processing of application Local Member requested that installation be moved 24 metres westwards away from field boundary and also that mast be disguised as tree. An assessment of the site by Officers has shown that the proposed siting as submitted is the least harmful visually that can be achieved and it is considered that a tree mast would be more visually prominent and out of keeping with the character of the area.

With regard concerns about inaccuracies in application details, these have been rectified by the agent and clearly plans showed proximity to residential property. The agent has confirmed that the tree height has been accurately measured using a clinometer and the Traffic Light Rating in accordance with ODPM Code of Practice is green.

Having regard to the characteristics of the area and the landscape features described above, I am satisfied that the agent has demonstrated a need for the installation in this area and that the siting is visually the least harmful that can be achieved. I do not consider that refusal of the application on grounds of impact of the installation on the landscape, proximity to residential properties and health risks would be justified.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that this installation will not have a significant impact in the landscape or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. Information accompanying the application confirmed that it would operate within ICNIRP Guidelines for Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields. Proposal accords with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2

Prior to the installation hereby approved being brought into use, the external surfaces of the equipment, cabin and mast shall be painted and thereafter maintained in a matt green colour to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4

Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance with this permission shall be removed from the land on which it is situated as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for the telecommunications purposes and the site shall be restored to its former condition. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with policy U17 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

13.

TCP/25604 P/01022/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton Registration Date: 02/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Applicant: West Island Developments Demolition of house; construction of 2 terraces of 3 houses, pair of semi-detached houses and two storey block of 6 flats with associated parking; alterations to vehicular access and landscaping (readvertised application - revised scheme) Lahai-Roi, High Street, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409LG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Councillor A Sutton has requested that this application is determined by the Development Control Committee on grounds that he, along with local residents, are concerned that the development will generate additional vehicle movements in area where there are already on-street parking and congestion problems and that access onto St Andrew's Way is likely to add to hazards of highway users.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major submission. The processing of this application has taken ten weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week time limit for determination due to negotiations with applicant's agent resulting in significant changes to scheme thereby requiring further publicity of the proposal. However, a determination at this meeting will mean that the application has been dealt with within the performance target of thirteen weeks for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to roughly L shaped site located on eastern side of Freshwater High Street immediately adjacent is junction with Silcombe Lane and Heathfield Road. Site has secondary frontage with access from St Andrew's Way. Large detached dwelling, which is in dilapidated state, is located close to High Street frontage of site. At time of an initial inspection site was somewhat overgrown, including several trees. At time of a subsequent inspection, some site clearance had taken place involving removal of substantial amount of natural growth, including several trees. A protected oak tree located in south eastern corner of site has also been removed, with authorisation from the Authority.

Area is predominantly residential in character comprising mix of dwelling types including flats/maisonettes, detached and semi detached houses. In addition, the Gouldings Residential Care Home, which is substantial complex, is located directly opposite St Andrew's Way frontage of application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Original submission sought full planning permission for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of twenty-one flats in two blocks, one on High Street frontage and one to rear of site. Building on High Street frontage was shown to be half two storey and half three storey, whilst building to rear of site was predominantly three storey with small two storey element on southern side. Area between buildings was laid out as parking and turning area with access road onto St Andrew's Way. Original proposal made provision for fourteen parking spaces.

Following negotiations with applicant's agent, further plans were submitted showing a revised scheme involving construction of six houses on High Street frontage, in two terraces of three dwellings, with two storey block of six flats and pair of semi detached houses to rear of site. All development is shown to be two storeys in height. Plans also show revised layout of access road and parking, again involving provision of total of fourteen parking spaces. Development would provide a mix of two and three bedroomed houses, each having its own designated garden area, with two storey block to rear of site providing four two bedroomed flats and two one bedroomed flats with communal amenity and drying area to rear. Provision would also be made within site for cycle parking to serve the proposed flats.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application involves previously developed (brownfield) site within development envelope boundary as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield site) rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites.

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.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to defined settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Developments.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommended refusal to original submission on grounds of unsatisfactory access by reason of inadequate width and that proposal did not provide sufficient parking provision and was inconsistent with the guidelines set out in policy TR16 of the UDP. In addition, he made a number of observations regarding the shortfalls in the parking layout and inadequacies of cycle storage.

Following consideration of the revised plans, Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Following inspection of site, Senior Countryside Officer advises that there are only two trees on site worthy of Tree Preservation Order, one of which is an oak, already protected, for which permission has recently been granted for removal, subject to planting of replacement tree. The other tree considered to be worthy of protection is an Ash, 3 metres west of the adjacent garages in the extreme north east corner of the site. With the exception of these two trees, no other trees within the site are considered worthy of protection.

Assistant Ecology Officer has carried out inspection of site in response to suggestions that it may contain a badger sett. However, at time of her inspection, the area had been cleared and ground disturbed within the site and, as a consequence, she was unable to comment on whether a subsidiary badger sett was present. She advises that, if the person who reported the matter wished to take any further action, it will be necessary for him to provide evidence of the sett to the police who may then be prepared to take action if they consider there is a case.

Council's Ecology Officer has also visited the site in response to suggestions from local resident that building within site is used by bats. At time of his inspection, he noted that the house is now completely stripped of roof tiles and quite unsuitable for bats. In addition, he examined an annexe building within the site and advises that this has no roof space and an external examination of the structure showed no evidence of bat use. Therefore, he concluded that site is not currently being used by bats for roosting and no further action is necessary.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service advise that proposals are considered to be satisfactory.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council objected to original submission on grounds that proposal would be over development of site with access onto a dangerous corner. The Parish Council also wished to place on record their concern about the number of developments being built in Freshwater and the strain they are placing on the local infrastructure which is already barely able to cope with current demand.

Following consideration of the revised proposal, Freshwater Parish Council maintained its objection to the proposal and also considered that issue of sustainable energy has not been addressed in this proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters received from local residents in respect of original submission objecting to and/or expressing concern in respect of proposal and raising the following issues:

Overlooking and loss of privacy.

Concern expressed over height of three storey building and relationship with adjacent properties - no three storey development within the area. If second floor accommodation required, should be provided in roof space.

No information on levels across site - floor levels indicated as same height as High Street level, buildings to rear of site will need to be significantly cut into ground.

Plans do not show adjacent houses, garage area or large oak tree within site.

Plans contain little detail for such a significant development.

Development involving significant backland element should be supported by cross section through site showing relationship with adjacent properties.

Plans do not indicate washing/drying facilities - layout of units would restrict use of dryers.

Proposal is out of keeping with Freshwater village and would result in poor quality development.

Inadequate parking provision - site in area where congestion and parking problems exist.

Site located adjacent dangerous corner due to parked cars - traffic generated by development will make situation worse.

Proposed road and turning space inadequate for access and turning of delivery vehicles, fire appliances and dustcarts etc.

Parking layout does not allow for adequate access/egress.

Dustbin area located close to adjacent properties.

Development would undermine foundation level of adjacent garage block.

Plans show 1.8 metre close boarded fence along boundary - use of condition questioned to prevent lowering of fence or less solid barrier which would create problems for adjacent properties.

Badger satellite den in south east corner of site - resident questions whether garden in south east corner is to be sub-divided or used as communal space.

There is no mention in submission of affordable housing - such provision can have significant impact on neighbouring properties.

No evidence of sewer work being carried out - concern expressed that development may affect water pressure.

One resident indicates that they are pleased to see site being considered for development after being left in dilapidated state for so long.

One letter received from local resident in support of proposal on grounds that development will tidy up site. In addition, letter has been received from Southern Housing Group expressing interest in acquiring four two bedroomed flats at 50% market value under a legal agreement for provision of affordable housing. They indicate that they have been in discussion with the Housing Services Department and their own Housing Management Team who have both indicated high need for affordable housing of this type in the Freshwater area.

Following publicity of revised plans, one additional letter received expressing concern over delay in the demolition of the property. Resident indicates that work has commenced on clearing land surrounding house leaving property very exposed and expressing concern that building attracts local children to the site. It is alleged that on one occasion, children have entered house and tried to set fire to it. Resident considers that redevelopment of site with new houses or flats would be improvement to the area.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer comments as follows:

Amenity space behind units 7-14 can become practically private - gated between 12 and 13 and down side of plot 14.

Bins too close to building presenting arson risk.

No play amenities on site - this can lead to juvenile nuisance problems with no space to play, especially if mixed age occupation.

Concern expressed over reference to common access to rear.

EVALUATION

The proposal involves residential development on brownfield site within development envelope and is considered to be acceptable in principle. Therefore determining factors in considering application are whether proposal involves acceptable density of development and whether scale, design and general appearance of buildings are in keeping with surroundings or would detract from amenities of the locality or adjoining occupiers.

Original submission was considered to be unacceptable on grounds that development of site with three storey buildings would not be in keeping with the surrounding area which is predominantly characterised by two storey development. In addition, Highway Engineer did not consider that proposal made adequate provision for vehicle parking for number of units proposed and this could not be overcome within the area available. Having regard to these factors, it was considered that proposal represented an over development of the site.

Revised proposal involves reduction in number of units from twenty-one to fourteen to be provided in a mix of dwelling types, including terraced housing, semi-detached houses and flats. Submitted plans show provision for the parking of fourteen vehicles within the site equating to 1 space per dwelling, which is now considered to be at an appropriate level for development in this locality. In addition, provision is to be made for cycle parking.

Revised proposal involves development at a level which falls below the threshold at which there would be a requirement for the applicant to provide affordable housing. However, site would be developed at a density of approximately 80 dwellings per hectare, above the minimum 30 - 50 dwellings per hectare required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing. This density figure is obviously influenced by inclusion within the scheme of flatted development resulting in higher density than if site was developed solely with houses. Therefore I do not consider that it could be argued that development involves underdevelopment of the site in a deliberate attempt to avoid making provision for affordable housing. However, the proposal incorporates a mix of accommodation, including one and two bedroomed flats and two and three bedroomed houses, providing housing which is likely to be at the lower end of the market.

The development is bounded to the east by garage blocks serving adjacent dwellings and to south by properties fronting Golden Ridge. I am satisfied that the general layout of the development and position of windows in relation to neighbouring properties is such that proposal will not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy. In particular, side elevation of pair of semi-detached houses located adjacent southern boundary of site with properties fronting Golden Ridge would contain only one window, at first floor level, serving bathroom. In general terms, I am satisfied that revised proposal involves development of site with number of units at a scale and of general appearance which is considered in keeping with the surrounding area and will not detract from the amenities of the locality or neighbouring residential properties.

Information provided on submitted plans indicates that site is relatively level with very gradual fall from east to west towards High Street frontage. Applicant has carried out some site clearance and following inspection of site subsequent to this work being carried out, I am satisfied that the information provided on the submitted plans represents a reasonable portrayal of the site conditions. Greatest change in level exists between area of land immediately adjacent St Andrew's Way frontage and main body of site and between site and slab level of garages immediately abutting eastern boundary. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that proposal will not necessitate significant excavations into site or changes in levels.

Local Member, Councillor A Sutton, and local residents have expressed concern regarding traffic generation from the development and have highlighted traffic management problems which exist within the general vicinity of the site. In particular, it is understood that on street parking within St Andrew's Way causes congestion and interrupts the free flow of traffic creating particular problems when vehicles enter from Heathfield Road. Local Member has indicated that, in his view, problems could be overcome by introduction of one way system in St Andrew's Way and/or provision of facilities to relieve pressure for on-street parking. Notwithstanding these concerns, the access arrangements to the proposed development are considered to be satisfactory and I do not consider that proposal will generate a significant increase in number of vehicle movements or that this issue would provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the application particularly bearing in mind that the Highways Engineer has recommended conditional approval. Therefore, I consider that the most appropriate way of addressing this issue would be to send a memo to the Traffic Section within Engineering Services highlighting these concerns.

In response to comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer, his concerns have been raised with applicant's agent and it is intended to address these issues as follows:

Provision of gates at appropriate locations to ensure that area to rear of units 7 to 14 remains private.

Alterations to pathway alongside dwelling on plot 6 to prevent creation of a common access to rear which could otherwise be used as short cut between high Street and St Andrew's Way.

Relocation of bin store to position adjacent cycle parking, away from the buildings.

Whilst Architectural Liaison Officer has raised concern regarding lack of play amenities on site, it should be noted that each of the dwellings would have a defined curtilage providing private amenity area and amenity space to rear of the block of six flats is considered adequate to serve these units. With exception of garden areas to rear of dwellings on plots 13 and 14, the area in the south eastern corner of the site would not be subdivided and would be arranged as a drying area and amenity space to serve the flats.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that proposal represents an acceptable form of development which will not detract from the amenities of the locality or neighbouring residential properties. In particular, I consider that the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the dwellings is appropriate within this locality and that proposal makes appropriate provision for access and parking arrangements.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2

Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3

No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4

Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first (five) years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. Such boundary treatment shall include the erection of a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence along the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. The boundary treatment shall be completed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings/flats within the development and shall, thereafter, be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7

All material resulting from the demolition of the existing buildings within the site shall be removed from the land prior to work commencing on the construction of the buildings hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining residential properties and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8

All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area edged pink on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to construction of the approved buildings proceeding beyond damp proof course level or such other timescale as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9

Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11

The access and crossing of the highway footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for heavy vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm 2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material 3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

12

The existing access to the site from Heathfield Road shall be stopped up and abandoned and the footway (including kerb line) shall be reinstated on completion of the new access. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13

Prior to occupation of any of the dwellings/flats on the development, the existing footway across the High Street/Heathfield Road frontage of the site shall be increased in width to 1.8 metres in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

14

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage with St Andrew's Way, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than one metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

15

No dwelling/flat shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the plan attached to and forming part of this Decision Note for fourteen cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear and such provision shall be retained. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

16

No flat/house within the development hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been provided within the site for the covered parking of a minimum of six cycles, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Thereafter, such provision shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and comply with policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That a memorandum is sent to Head of the Traffic Section within Engineering Services highlighting concerns raised over traffic/parking problems in vicinity of the application site.

14.	TCP/25638 P/01136/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West Registration Date: 06/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mrs J Hull Construction of end of terrace house land adjoining 10, School Lane, Carisbrooke, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

An employee of the Council has an interest in this application.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The processing of this minor application has taken nine and a half weeks to date. It has taken more than eight weeks because of negotiations on design, completion of consultations and the need to take this application to Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an irregular shaped plot of land adjacent to and forming part of 10 School Lane. School Lane is a narrow highway running between Priory Road and Carisbrooke High Street.

Application site is situated on the eastern side of School Lane which currently comprises of five identical pairs of semi-detached houses and two chalet bungalows elevated above highway level. The land in question sits between the first of the ten semis and an elevated chalet bungalow at No.8.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks detailed consent for a three bedroom end of terrace house. The site is long and narrow with frontage onto School Lane of approximately six metres. It is proposed to set the proposed house back from the front wall of No.10 by some 2.9 metres, whilst having its roof at a slightly higher level to and totally independent from No.10.

Land rises quite steeply from the application property to the adjoining chalet bungalow at No.8 meaning that excavation and subsequent retention work will be necessary to facilitate this development. Finished floor levels have been confirmed as 100.00 datum at 10 School Lane, 100.750 for the proposed dwelling and approximately 102.3 at 8 School Lane.

The proposed dwelling is "T" shaped with the majority of accommodation situated on two floors within the wider section at the front, with a kitchen/diner, bedroom and bathroom arranged in a narrow two storey element to the rear. Submitted plans show the proposed dwelling to have a single storey front facing bay window, materials to match the adjoining house and window proportions that are not untypical of other houses in the immediate locality. Plans show two parking spaces directly in front of the proposed dwelling, one for the existing and one for the proposed house.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown as being within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies are considered to be:

S1 New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas.

G1 Development Envelopes.

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 Standards of Design.

D2 Standards for Development Within Site.

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Islandwatch object on grounds of inappropriate design for the area, and particularly the adjoining terrace. It also represents over development of the site.

Six letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

Backland development.

Loss of light.

Devaluation.

Impact upon the street scene.

Change the character of School Lane.

Upset the symmetry of the street scene.

The limited width of School Lane does not lend itself to further development.

Exacerbate on street parking problems.

Increase in traffic generation.

Structural integrity of the boundary wall between site and No.8 School Lane may be undermined.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Given the location of the application site within the development envelope, there can be no objection to the principle of this development. The main consideration is whether this site can accommodate the proposed dwelling without having an adverse effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of the area in general.

The design of the proposed dwelling has been carefully conceived so that, on the one hand, it relates relatively well to the adjoining pair, but on the other, is sufficiently different so that it does not compete with the established rhythm of development along this side of School Lane. The proposed dwelling is shown to be set back from the recognised building line by almost three metres. With this in mind, I am duly satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not appear prominent in the street scene, neither would it compromise the integrity of the semi-detached houses along this side of School Lane.

The one property that would be most affected by this development is 10 School Lane which is under the control of the applicant. Revised plans have been submitted showing a single storey extension to the rear of the property in order to eliminate an existing courtyard to no. 10 that would become very enclosed and overshadowed by the proposed dwelling. The other neighbour (No.8) is on the southern side of the proposed dwelling, has limited openings facing into the application site and is situated at a higher level. It is therefore my opinion that this property would not be adversely affected. The neighbour next door but one at No.12 referred to the potential for loss of light. Whilst noting that the proposed dwelling is due south of this objector, I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable spatial relationship with this property by reason of the sufficient distance between the two and the intervening dwelling at No.10.

It has been suggested that the construction of this house may undermine the stability of a brick wall (partly retaining) running along the southern boundary of the application site. The developer is ultimately responsible for ensuring the safe development of this site and will have to comply with any requirements as laid out under the Party Wall Act 1996. I therefore see no reason why this objection should carry significant weight in the determination of the application.

School Lane does not appear to carry a large volume of traffic. Any vehicular activity along School Lane is naturally calmed by the narrowness of this highway coupled with on street parking. Additional vehicular activity as a result of this development would not, in my opinion, be significant. The Highway Engineer is satisfied that the proposed parking and access arrangement is acceptable. I therefore see no reason why this development should fail on highway grounds.

In terms of other objections that have been raised in respect of this proposed development, the application site has sufficient frontage onto School Lane and would not therefore constitute backland development. Concern relating to property devaluation is not a valid planning objection and should not carry any weight at all when determining this application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with

the right of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling is acceptable in principle and that this development will not detract from the character of locality or have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02

3

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before (the use hereby permitted is commenced) (before the building(s) is/are occupied) (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5

The proposed first floor bathroom window in the southern elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan

6	The lower part of the first floor bathroom window shall be permanently fixed shut. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

7

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the single storey extension to 10 School Lane has been substantially completed. Reason: To protect the amenities of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

8

The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than 1.05 metres above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

15.	TCP/25651 P/01172/03 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: Osborne Registration Date: 10/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. C. Boulter Tel: (01983) 823568 Applicant: Cowes Harbour Commission Proposed boat hoist dock & associated works land at Kingston Wharf, Kingston Road, East Cowes, PO32

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs Smart) and the Chairman of the Development Control Committee (Councillor Mrs Miller) have asked that this application is determined by the Development Control Committee because it forms an integral part of the development of Shepards Wharf, approved subject to Section 106 Agreement by the Development Control Committee on 25 February 2002 and also to give Members the opportunity to consider the proposal in the light of Project Cowes.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken nine weeks and one day to the date of the Committee meeting.

This is beyond the prescribed time limit because of the need to complete consultations and having determined that the application would need to go before Committee, 12 August is the first available date.

SITE AND LOCATION

Application site involves a relatively small (less than 0.1 hectare) area of waterfront land, immediately south of the gas holders and north of the petroleum quay, accessed from the southern end of Kingston Road. Roughly half the site is concrete fore shore area, with sheet pile waterfront; the remainder is an inter-tidal area on which currently, pontoons and landing quays are situated. To the east and southeast is a substantial area, the western part of which is occupied by a gravel/ballast sorting and distribution area whilst to the east of that, is a number of buildings used for commercial purposes, including for storage by the Cowes Harbour Commissioners.

The surrounding area includes the Kingston Power Station and is wholly commercial in character. The access road, however, (Kingston Road) does serve the cemetery and frontage of residential development at its northern end, close to its junction with Minerva Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Considerable number of applications for the general commercial area adjoining, but none specific to this site. Nearest and most recent consents are:

TCP/19315G - Continuation of storage of hazardous substances (natural gas) following change in control of part of the land, approved with conditions on 31 March 2000. This approval relates to the Gas Holder areas to the north of the current application site.

TCP/19315F - Temporary permission for renewal of a storm shelter on jetty, expiring 30 September 2003. This shelter located on the quay area to the south of the application site.

TCP/19315E - Change of use of ground floor offices to workshop and store, permitted 20 October 1995. This consent related to the building immediately west of the access into the site from Kingston Road and is some 130 metres east of the application site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission sought for the construction of a boat hoist dock, consisting of two "finger" pier track ways for use by a 40 tonne straddle-hoist/transporter. Additional pontoons, with some new piles required, would also be provided to give lay by berthing prior to boats being removed from the water. These pontoons would be linked to the shore by an 18 metres by 1 metre wide access bridge, located immediately south of the "finger" piers, the more northerly of which would be located in approximately the same position as the existing link walkway with the second pier some 5.7 metres to the south of that. Each pier would be 20 metres long by 1.7 metres wide, supported on five tubular steel piles with maximum height of walkway 1.65 metres above mean high water spring tides and 4.9 metres above mean low water springs. The boat hoist itself would run along galvanized plate or brushed concrete decking, whilst on the outside of each runway is a walkway, consisting of galvanized open grid decking, with a 1.2 metres high "kee-klamp" type handrail. Some dredging would be required within the area of the boat hoist to allow full access by vessels at all states of the tide.

The northern lay by berth would be secured to existing piles, whilst the L-shaped berth to the south would require three additional piles.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national policies are considered to be:

PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms) which confirms that underused or vacant industrial land should be brought back into beneficial use as this is important to the regeneration of towns and cities.

PPG9 (Nature Conservation) confirms that nature conservation can be a significant material consideration in determining many planning applications. Consultations should be undertaken with English Nature and appropriate bodies where impacts on specially designated areas (e.g. SSSI, SAC, SPA) maybe effected.

PPG20 (Coastal Planning) identifies four types of coastline, (i) broadly undeveloped coast, conserved for landscape and nature conservation value; (ii) other areas of undeveloped or partly developed coast; (iii) developed coast (urbanised) with major ports, power stations etc and (iv) despoiled coast. Application site would be considered developed coast which will provide opportunities for restructuring and regenerating existing urban areas, thereby approving appearance and the environment. Where new development requires a coast location, developed coast will usually provide the best option.

Relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S1 - New development concentrated within existing urban areas;

S2 - Development encouraged on previously developed land;

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages;

D1 - Standards of Design;

E7 - Employment Sites with Deep Water Frontage;

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration;

C9 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation;

TR6 - Cycling and Walking;

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development;

L8 - Jetties, Pontoons and Slip Ways.

The site itself lies within a substantial area shown on the proposals map for the UDP as a "wharf" and policies M6 (Aggregate Wharfs) and TR15 (Bulk Freight Handling and Distribution Facilities) are specifically identified as relevant. The site lies some 250 metres north of the northern limit of the SSSI designation on the eastern bank of the River Medina, which is also designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds and the river itself is designated as a Candidate Special Area of Control.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer - awaited.

Environment Agency - awaited.

English Nature - the structural (i.e. built) elements of the development will not have a significant effect on the Solent Maritime Candidate Special Area of Conservation and will not require an appropriate assessment.

Health and Safety Executive does not advise, on health and safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.

PARISH AND TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

East Cowes Town Council has no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

EVALUATION

Members will recall that, during the debates earlier this year on the development of Shepards Wharf, concerns were expressed at the loss of boat storage facilities and that the Cowes Harbour Commissioners, as applicants, undertook to provide alternative facilities at Kingston Yard. This application seeks consent for the means of getting boats out of and back into the water to enable them to be stored and where necessary worked upon, in a substantial area of land to the south and east of the application site, and which has been identified on the plan attached to this report. That land is already occupied for uses within Class B8 (storage) so no further consents are necessary for change of use of that land to allow boat storage to take place. The eastern part of that area is occupied by several buildings, one of which is already used by the Harbour Commissioners for storage. It is anticipated that the remaining buildings will be occupied by workshops, fitters, riggers, chandlers, who would serve the storage area. Any consents required for change of use of all or part of these buildings would be sought when the occupiers are known.

It is anticipated that up to 100 medium sized recreational yachts could be stored on the boatyard with peak storage demand from October through to April. Individual boat owners tend mainly to carry out the routine maintenance themselves and the applicants anticipate that any traffic increases should be minimal and will occur mainly over the winter season when East Cowes ferry traffic is at a minimum. However, it must be stressed that this element of the proposal does not require planning permission as storage use is already established on the site.

The physical works, the subject of the application, are themselves relatively minor when seen against the context of the development coastline in this area. The two "finger" piers and the mobile transporter which will run along them and within the storage area, will have little visual impact as they will be seen in the context of the existing commercial development. The waterfront area already supports a number of pontoons and moored boats/barges etc and therefore no change in character of the coastline or the estuary is anticipated.

The development applied for clearly relies on a coastal location and is in accordance with the specific policies of the UDP on this issue.

As the proposal has the potential adversely to impact the candidate Special Area of Control, a European designation, consultation with English Nature is extremely important. In this case, English Nature has advised that no adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed built development and that no appropriate assessment, under the Habitats Regulations, is necessary. I can therefore see no reason on nature conservation grounds to withhold consent for the development.

With regard to access, although passing in front of residential development at its northern end, Kingston Road already serves a significant amount of commercial development, including development such as the gravel quay, the petroleum quay and the power station, which will require regular use by large freight vehicles. The use of the site for boat storage is not expected significantly to increase the amount of traffic using Kingston Road, this will mostly be the private vehicles or the boat owners visiting the site, once their vessels have been taken from the water by the boat hoist.

It is not anticipated that the allocation of a much larger area of surrounding land as a "wharf" will be prejudiced by the development the subject of the application, or by the use of the associated area of land for boat storage.

With regard to "Project Cowes", the site lies within Zone 3, which is identified as a focus for commercial shipping activity within the Medina Valley. It is particularly important for bulk storage and handling facilities, principally aggregates, grain and fuel oil. It is closely integrated with Zone 2 (marine industries) and Zone 1 (town centres, leisure and events). Key opportunities identified in Project Cowes for this area are retention of existing aggregates and grain storage facilities, new workshops/business units, rationalisation of aggregates uses to free up other potential development opportunities, additional employment uses, and most importantly, approximately 3.2 hectares of boat storage, to meet significant current demand.

Overall, therefore, the proposed development the subject of the application and the associated boat storage which does not of itself need consent, would appear to accord with the general principles of land use and development set out in Project Cowes.

I can see no material reasons for which this application could be refused and recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection on the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section, I am satisfied that this proposal represents an acceptable form of development, in accordance with national and local policies regarding coastal development, the UDP, and Project Cowes. Consultations with the Highways Authority, English Nature and Environment Agency raise no issues which would warrant refusal of the application, which is accordingly recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Such conditions as may be recommended by the Highways Engineer.

3	Such conditions as may be recommended by the Environment Agency.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/12204C/M4381 Shop/Tea Room and Living Accommodation, Land at Gurnard Marsh, Marsh Road, Gurnard

Officer: Mr C Boulter Tel: (01983) 823568

Summary

To consider whether it is appropriate to release a Section 52 (planning obligation) Agreement in which the landowner covenanted to ensure that the living accommodation would not be separated from the shop/tea room and the overall site would not be sold, let or otherwise disposed of other than as a whole.

Background

TCP/12204C In September 1988, the former Local Planning Authority granted outline planning permission for a shop/tea room with living accommodation and restaurant all at ground floor level at a site now known as “Sea Lights”, Marsh Road, Gurnard, following the conclusion of a Section 52 Agreement under which the land owners agreed that:

“The said living accommodation shall be occupied in connection with the operation of the said shop/tea room and the owners shall not sell, let or otherwise dispose of the site other than as a whole.”

The Committee report identified the introduction of an additional residential unit of accommodation as more contentious than the replacement of the shop and tearooms, as the site was within an area, where further residential uses should be discouraged. The report did, however, point out that if the accommodation were to be tied in with the shop and tearooms and use of land adjacent under a Section 52 Agreement, it was considered that an exception could be made in this instance.

TCP/12204D Reserved matters to TCP/12204C were subsequently approved in October 1991 and the development has since been constructed. Kitchen facilities were shared between restaurant and living accommodation. The planning permission was implemented therefore the Section 52 Agreement is active.

TCP/12204G Approval granted in May 1993 for use of the north western part of the overall site for windsurfing and dinghy sailing school, together with the re-siting of a hut. Although no variation to the Section 52 Agreement quoted above was made at the time, subsequently, in November 1994, a Deed of Variation of the Section 52 Agreement was authorised formally to allow the disposal of that part of the site used as a wind surfing school. The planning permission was implemented.

TCP/12204J October 1993, permission granted for the conversion of roof space of the living accommodation at the site into two bedrooms at first floor level and alterations to provide kitchen facilities separate from restaurant to create a self-contained living unit. The planning permission was implemented.

TCP/12204K Approval was granted in March 1994 for a single storey extension to provide restaurant/bar with kitchen, toilet and parking facilities. The planning permission was implemented.

TCP/12204N Permission granted in January 2003 for an extension to enlarge the restaurant area on ground floor, including a “turret” with link to existing balcony at first floor level. The planning permission was implemented.

TCP/12204P Approval was granted in June 2003 for the same development as immediately above, but also including a new balcony on the north east elevation and alterations to the roof space to provide a separate first floor flat, comprising one bedroom, kitchen and private lounge above the restaurant. The planning permission has not yet been implemented.

A letter has now been received from the site owner referring to the Section 52 agreement entered into by the previous owners of the site in 1988 (see TCP/12204C above) and indicating that he can see no good reason for such an obligation and formally requesting that it be removed. See copy letter attached – Appendix “A”.

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered to apply:

S1 – New Development in Existing Urban Areas;

S4 – Countryside Protected from Inappropriate Development;

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements;

H9 – Residential Development outside Development Boundaries.

The relevant policy considerations, although now contained in the Isle of Wight Council’s Unitary Development Plan, rather than the former Cowes Town Map, are basically the same in that the site remains outside the defined development envelope and is within an area where new dwellings would not normally be permitted. The reason for the imposition of the Section 52 Agreement was clearly stated in the report presented to the Local Planning Authority at the time and was to ensure that residential accommodation remained “tied in” with the shop, tearooms and use of land adjacent. That principle would still hold good today, notwithstanding the approval of a further flat within the building; the Section 52 Agreement still ensures that the flat and dwelling unit are not sold separately from the site, therefore creating uncontrolled development outside the development envelope.

The Section 52 Agreement should be retained, unless it can be shown it no longer serves a useful purpose in which case it should be released.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. To agree to the release of the Section 52 agreement.

2. Not to agree to the release of the Section 52 agreement.

Conclusion

The property in question lies between Marsh Road and the foreshore at Gurnard and is within an area typified by small-scale residential development and some beach/shore related activities. The residential development is generally to the east and south whilst the shoreline uses, including boat storage and associated sailing activities, occur to the west, towards Gurnard Luck.

It is clear that the residential unit approved in outline in 1988 was outside the development envelope and would not have been approved if it had not supported an acceptable commercial use on the land. The agreement was considered essential, if the application were to be approved, in order that the policies preventing the proliferation of unnecessary dwellings outside the development envelope could be adhered to. The situation, in policy terms, is still the same. Without such agreement, new dwellings would not be permitted on the site and if it were removed, the possibility is that both the flat and the adjoining dwelling could be sold separately, thus undermining the Council’s UDP policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries).

I can see no fundamental policy change since the Section 52 agreement was concluded and believe it continues to serve a useful purpose as outlined above. As such the Section 52 Agreement should continue to subsist. Therefore, whilst recognising the applicant’s views, my recommendation is that the Committee does not agree to the removal of the Section 52 Agreement.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 1 of the first protocol (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts the release of the agreement might have on the owners/occupiers of this and other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others, the recommendation to release the Section 52 Agreement is considered appropriate for the protection of the rights and freedom of the landowner. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Recommendation

Not to agree to the release of the Section 52 Agreement.

(b) TCP/21784/B Unauthorised alterations to vehicular access and formation of hard standing at The Orchard, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Ventnor, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr P Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To decided whether the Enforcement Notice which has been previously authorised by the Development Control Committee should be served notwithstanding that no formal agreement has been reached between the relevant parties in respect of a right of way to the property which runs over an adjoining neighbour’s land.

Background

Members have previously considered reports on this matter at the meetings of the 17 September 2002, 10 December 2002 and 29 April 2003.

This matter concerns three properties known as Orchard Close, Orchard Dene and The Orchard. The original access to these three properties had to be abandoned because it is on the very edge of the landslip area on Undercliff Drive.

At 10 December 2002 Development Control Committee it was reported that a new access to the three properties had been formed north east of the original access point which was being overtaken by the landslip. The report therefore advised Members that the need for the owner of The Orchard to have his own independent access and hardstanding area off Undercliff Drive was not essential and having considered the relevant Unitary Development Plan policies enforcement action was duly authorised to close this unauthorised access.

Following the December meeting the Council’s Legal Section was instructed to prepare an Enforcement Notice. At the end of January 2003 the owner of The Orchard contacted the Council indicating that he had no legal right of way over the new access. The grounds to the three properties are divided between the three residential units and the new access crosses a section of land in control of one property owner. The Council’s Legal Department were concerned that the Committee were not in possession of the full facts when they took the decision to enforce which is why the matter was referred back to the meeting of 29 April 2003. At the April meeting, Committee Members decided to note the information put forward, and to suspend the service of the Enforcement Notice as previously authorised by the Committee on 10 December 2002 until it was clarified that the individual concerned had secured a legal right to use the new access. The case was to be reviewed in three months with regards to progress or earlier if evidence indicated that the unauthorised access was in active use. Following the meeting the Case Officer wrote to the owner of The Orchard encouraging him to seek agreement and asking for an update within three month timescale.

The owner of the unauthorised access has not contacted the Planning Department other than to indicate that he had been told that he could use the access provided that he agreed to a number of conditions which were unacceptable to him. The owner of the land over which the new access passes has set these conditions out in a letter to the Solicitor of the owner of The Orchard and it is quite clear that these conditions seek to impose solutions to unrelated matters which are bones of contention between these two neighbours. I think it is very obvious that no immediate compromise is going to be reached between these neighbours. The owner of the land which is crossed by the access has written to officers indicating that he does not intend to bar use of the new access.

Taking the above into account, I feel that a line needs to be drawn under this matter and even though it may impinge on the human rights of the owner of The Orchard, I feel that the Enforcement Notice to close this unauthorised access should now be served on highway safety grounds as the visibility to the east of this access is extremely poor. The owner of The Orchard has his right of appeal and it may be that this matter should be left to an independent inspector to decide whether or not the Enforcement Notice should be upheld.

Financial Implications

None

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice with the following requirements:

(i) To cease the use of the access.

Time for compliance - two months after the notice takes effect.

(ii) To restore the stone wall to its former condition and in its former position prior to the alterations.

Time for compliance – two months after the notice takes effect.

(iii) To remove the paviours from the cross over area and remove from the land.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

(iv) To break up and remove all materials which form part of the hardstanding.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

(v) To cease to use the hardstanding area as a parking area.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

2. Whilst having noted the highway safety concerns regarding the retention of the unauthorised access, to resolve to cease any enforcement action and allow its retention.

Conclusion

When considering this matter in the past the Local Planning Authority has been quite categoric that the unauthorised access was unacceptable because of concerns with regards to matters of highway safety. This view has been tested by planning applications in 1995, and in May 2002. As stated above I believe that the time has now come for the Enforcement Notice to be served requiring the closure of this unauthorised access. In coming to this recommendation to serve the Enforcement Notice, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention of Human Rights. It is recognised that the enforcement action will be an interference with the owner’s human rights but this if felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in particular that the highway concerns outweigh the need of the owner to retain the unauthorised access.

Recommendation

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice with the following requirements:

(i) To cease the use of the access.

Time for compliance – two months after the notice takes effect.

(ii) To restore the stone wall to its former condition and in its former position prior to the alterations.

Time for compliance – two months after the notice takes effect.

(iii) To remove the paviours from the cross over area and remove from the land.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

(iv) To break up and remove all materials which form part of the hardstanding.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

(v) To cease to use the hardstanding area as a parking area.

Time for compliance – two months after notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services