|
1. |
NEW APPEALS LODGED |
|
|
|
TCPL/22131/D & LBC/22131/E |
Mr G Collins against refusal of planning permission and refusal of Listed Building Consent for a 1/2 storey extension to form annexed accommodation at 3 John Street, Ryde. |
|
|
TCP/10249/D |
Mr T Blackman against refusal for a detached house, land between Bridgemead and Holford House, New Road, Wootton Bridge. |
|
|
TCP/25652/A & E/25652/B |
Mr J D Bradley against refusal of planning permission and Enforcement Notice relating to use of land and buildings for paintball games centre at Cats Copse, Westview Road, Cowes. |
|
|
TCP/9272/H |
Mr G Roberts against refusal for continued siting of mobile home at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff. |
|
|
TCP/4308/C |
Mr and Mrs Atkinson against refusal of outline for 5 bungalows and garage and formation of access road, land off Westway, Cowes. |
|
|
TCP/26115 |
Mr Lloyd against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for dwelling and hardstanding and construction of hardstanding for number 14 with alterations to vehicular access on land between 12 and 14 Brook Road, Shanklin. |
|
|
TCP/14001/P |
Maritime and Leisure against refusal for formation of car park for houseboat owners use, land adjacent Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge. |
|
|
TCP/10522/D |
The Trustees of Blackgang Mission against refusal for demolition of former building and outline for detached house and garage with alterations to vehicular access at former Blackgang Mission Hall, Blythe Shute, Chale. |
|
|
TCP/20290/A |
Mr J Tellick against refusal for demolition of chalet and outline for chalet bungalow and alterations to vehicular access, land rear of Homecroft, Cranmore Avenue, Cranmore. |
|
|
TCP/4489/J |
Mr and Mrs Boyce against refusal of outline for two flats, land rear of 40 Place Road, Cowes. |
|
|
TCP/9578/A |
Mr B Miskin against refusal for demolition of outbuilding and construction of single/two storey extension to form annexed accommodation at Ivy Cottage, Station Road, Ningwood. |
|
2. |
HEARING/INQUIRY DATES |
|
|
|
|
No new dates to report |
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS |
||
|
|
(a) |
E/24024/C |
Mr J Hobson against Enforcement Notice relating to two shipping containers on land at Helens Copse, Gate Lane, Freshwater Bay. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Enforcement action to secure removal of shipping containers. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Enforcement action – 14 October 2003. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed – 8 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: · The effect of the containers upon the character and appearance of the AONB and the Heritage Coast. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The presence of the containers on this exposed site in full view from a well used public footpath causes demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of this part of the Heritage Coast and the AONB. · There has been ample time for the appellant to resolve the matter of a replacement storage building and there are no special reasons why permission should be granted for a further temporary period. · The suggestions of moving the containers closer together, further landscaping, painting or providing some form of camouflage would not render the development acceptable or overcome the harm to the character and appearance of the area. · The only effective remedy is to permanently remove the containers from the site. · The requirements of the notice are reasonable and necessary and no lesser steps would be effective. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(b) |
TCP/15212/C |
Mr and Mrs S Holmes against refusal for alterations and extensions to Southview Grange, Bagwich Lane, Godshill. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 18 September 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed – 9 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: · The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · This is an isolated position in an open, rolling landscape with an unspoilt and deeply rural character. · The existing dwelling appears unobtrusive because of its modest scale and proportion and the screening effect of trees and hedges. · The proposed single storey extension on the west side, because of its limited bulk and sympathetic form, could be accommodated without harm. · The proposed two storey extension on the east side would create a building of substantially greater depth and overall bulk than as existing. · The proposed two storey rear extension would be readily visible form Bagwich Lane and would appear out of proportion to the modest scale of the existing dwelling. · The appearance of the full depth of the extended building would seriously harm the distinctive character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and would conflict with G4, H5 and C1. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(c) |
TCP/25583/A |
Mr P Sheppard against refusal for formation of vehicular access and hardstanding at 77 Avenue Road, Sandown. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 4 August 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed – 9 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: ·
The effect of
the proposal on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Avenue Road
(B3329) |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The proposal would provide a single parking space in the front garden, parallel to the highway. · Bearing in mind the pressure for on-street parking in this vicinity, a vehicle emerging from the hardstanding would emerge onto the road between parked cars. · The driver of such a vehicle would have a significantly restricted view of oncoming traffic. · The restricted visibility would create conditions which would prejudice the safety and free flow of traffic in Avenue Road, contrary to TR7. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
TCP/8862/B |
HSBC Holdings Plc. against refusal for new access ramps and steps with balustrading at HSBC Bank, High Street, Sandown. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 24 November 2003 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Allowed - 9 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: ·
The effect of
the proposal on the safety and free flow of pedestrians on the adjoining
footway. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The appeal site is on a corner site where the existing footway is relatively wide. · The proposed platform, steps and balustrade would project out from the bank premises leaving a reduced area of clear footway for unimpeded movement of pedestrians. · DB32 sets out a recommended minimum width of footway of 1700 mm and 1800 mm for greater ease of movement. · The submitted plans show an available width of 2100 mm. · There would be adequate width available outside the development to allow for safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and wheelchair users. · The proposal would not prejudice the safety and free flow of pedestrians and would improve access for disabled people to the bank premises. · The development complies with TR7. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(e) |
TCP/22594/M |
Mr and Mrs H Greenway against refusal of outline for a dwelling on Plot 27 Hillgrove, Ducie Avenue, Bembridge. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) – 8 January 2004 |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed - 15 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: · The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. · The effect on the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers with particular reference to privacy. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The site is of such limited size and frontage width that there is no reasonable prospect of accommodating a dwelling which would harmonise with those in Ducie Avenue. · The proposed dwelling would appear cramped and intrusive. · The development would detract significantly from the distinctive character and appearance of the immediate surrounding area and would be contrary to G4, D1 and D2. · If the proposed development was permitted it could make it harder to resist similar development within the immediate adjoining area which could further undermine its distinctive character, contrary to G4, D1 and D2. · There is considerable screening to the site and the likely distance between the proposed dwelling and immediately adjoining dwellings would not cause overlooking. · There would be no significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties because of loss of privacy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(f) |
E/24939/A & E/24939/B |
Mr P N Norris against Enforcement Notices relating to roadside fencing and change of use of the land for storage of builders materials and equipment, motor storage and repair of vehicles, siting of portacabins on land at Bembridge Boatyard, Marine Works, Embankment Road, Bembridge. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Enforcement action to reduce height of fence and to remove all materials, equipment and portacabins. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Enforcement action |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed (both appeals) - 18 June 2004 |
|
|
|
Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: · Whether the notices were correctly served. · Whether a change of use has occurred. · Whether lesser steps would overcome the objections. · Whether the time given to comply is too short. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The Council took all the necessary steps to establish all those persons who had an interest in the land and the notices were issued and served correctly. · Most of what was alleged in one notice has been removed but from the limited information available it is clear the material change of use had occurred. · Building materials, portacabins and vehicles are unlikely to be legitimately used in connection with a boatyard. · No lesser steps were suggested by the appellant and none could be undertaken that would remedy the breach or injury caused to amenity by the development. · The period of compliance (4 months) is reasonable. |
||
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.