PAPER B3

 

 

 

TCP/10506/F   P/02364/02  Parish/Name:  Ventnor

Registration Date:  29/01/2003  -  Full Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr. A. Pegram           Tel:  (01983) 823575

 

Demolition of building; 6 storey building to form 2 shop units on ground floor with 9 flats over (revised scheme)(readvertised application)

Le Veness, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JT

 

This application was initially considered at the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 1 June 204 when Members resolved to defer the application in order to carry out a Committee Site Inspection. The Committee Site Inspection took place on Friday 11 June 2004 when Members resolved to defer the application once again in order that negotiations could take place with the applicant's agent to secure a reduction in the height of the building to reduce the impact of the proposal on the street scene and on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Members suggested that such reduction in height could be achieved by removal of one storey. In addition, Members requested that, having regard to the modern design approach adopted in this proposal, consideration was given to the inclusion within the scheme of energy saving measures, such as photovoltaic cells on the roof of the building, and the provision of a grey water system.

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This is a minor application, which is considered to be contentious having attracted a large number of representations and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

 

PROCESSING INFORMATION

 

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 78 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to negotiations on the design of the building and discussions/consultations on matters relating to ground stability.  These negotiations/consultations have been further protracted by a heavy workload. In addition, time has elapsed due to the resolutions by Members to defer the application for a Committee Site Inspection and subsequent negotiations.

 

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

Application relates to rectangular site, fronting the Esplanade approximately 20 metres east of its junction with Alma Road.  The site rises steeply to rear with land adjacent the rear boundary of the site between 10 and 11 metres above the esplanade road.  The site is flanked on either side by quite substantial Victorian style properties.  Property to east is elevated above Esplanade, with ground floor level approximately 5.5 metres above road, whilst property to west rises from esplanade to higher level on Alma Road.  Original building which occupied the site was demolished several years ago with only element of ground floor of property remaining.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

TCP/10506C/SB17157 – Outline planning permission for two maisonettes and four flats in a four storey block conditionally approved in February 1984.

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

Original submission sought consent for demolition of building and full planning permission for a four storey building to provide two maisonettes and four flats.  Ground floor to building was shown to be elevated approximately two metres above Esplanade with wall across frontage to site and access to maintenance area under building containing hydraulic levelling rams.  The building stepped up through site, rising to the higher ground to rear of the site with balconies/sun terraces across front of the building.  In plan form, the design of the building adopted a nautical theme with the shape of the balconies/sun terraces representative of the bow of a ship.

 

Following negotiations with applicant’s agent, the scheme was revised, and further plans submitted showing a six storey building, increasing the number of flats from six to nine, also incorporating two shop units at ground floor level fronting the esplanade.  The increase in number of floors has been achieved, with only a modest increase in height, by bringing the ground floor level with the esplanade and replacing the more conventional hipped roof with a shallow curved roof.  The design and general appearance of the building has changed radically, maintaining some nautical features such as port-hole style windows, overall adopting a more modern approach.  Design retains balconies/sun terraces to all floors, except ground floor level, with curved fronts and projecting beyond side elevation of the building to give appearance similar to that of a flying bridge on a ship.

 

Original submission was accompanied by ground stability report and additional information was provided with revised plans in the form of a suggested Method Statement for the construction of the new building.  These reports have been the subject of consultations with the Council's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer.  In addition, revised plans were also accompanied by a Design Statement for the proposed building, copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Site is shown on the plans which accompany the Ventnor Landslip Potential Assessment to be within an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development, where it is expected that planning applications will be accompanied by a desktop study and walkover survey together with information derived from a ground investigation or geotechnical appraisal.  In this respect, Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, advises as follows:

 

"The handling of individual applications for development on land which is known or suspected to be unstable or potentially unstable will need to take account of the potential hazards that such instability could create both for the development itself and to the neighbouring area.  Whilst there is scope for flexibility and each application must be treated on its merits, it is important that a Local Planning Authority should be satisfied by the developer that any instability has been taken into account."

 

Application site is located within development envelope as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.  Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

 

            S1        New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

           

S2        Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brownfield sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites.  Greenfield sites will only be allocated for development where they are extensions to urban areas and where no suitable alternative brownfield site exists.

 

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

 

G7       Development on Unstable Land

 

D1       Standards of Design

 

D2       Standards for Development within the Site

 

H1        New Residential Development to be Located Within the Main Island Towns

 

H4        Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

 

H6        High Density Residential Development

 

TR16   Parking Policies and Guidelines

 

R2       New Retail Development

 

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

 

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions should application be approved.

 

Coastal Manager submitted comments in respect of original submission in which he described the site as a "longstanding eyesore" and indicated that he was delighted with the prospect of something happening which could prove to be of great benefit in terms of regenerating the Esplanade.  However, he is aware that the site has significant constraints in terms of its past history.  In this respect, he advises that the former South Wight Borough Council had to carry out extensive structural works in the interests of public safety.  In addition, he recalls that the building became structurally unsound and that there are issues relating to support from the retaining wall to the rear, as well as on both flank walls.  It is believed that the Silvermere Hotel to the west of the site is also subject to structural constraints and, therefore, the site will need to be approached very carefully.  With regard to the geological appraisal which accompanied the submission, the Coastal Manager commented that this seemed quite comprehensive and factual and therefore would suggest that the main input is likely to be required from Building Control.

 

Application has been considered by the Architects' Panel who, in response to the original submission, made the following observations:

 

At pavement level drawings indicated a wall with two windows, which were provided as access for maintenance to sub-basement, and it was felt that this was hostile given that general public would pass across frontage.  Panel recommended that some use (perhaps commercial) be provided on ground floor.

 

Side elevations did not indicate properties on either side and Panel felt this was necessary to see the relationship. 

 

Block plan inadequate and required more detail including floor level.

 

Roof was most uninteresting and panel suggested that use of non-traditional materials would be appropriate.

 

Rear elevation was poorly articulated and window configuration quite bland and boring, requiring more attention.

 

Bow-shaped balconies seem to be an innovative piece of design but was poorly  handled, particularly at the ground floor.

 

Access for properties was via staircase either side of block.  However these are not shown on the elevation, presenting an incomplete picture of the frontage.

 

With regard to the revised scheme, the Architects' Panel made the following observations:

 

Panel considered details to be a considerable improvement and that a modern design approach to this site on the sea front would be considered acceptable in principle.

 

Adjacent buildings considered to be of mediocre design and it was not felt that proposal needed to respond to appearance of these buildings.

 

Panel had previously considered other new development on Ventnor Esplanade and indicated that a Policy Design Brief for this area would be of assistance.

 

Panel noted that the form and design of the building could set a precedent for future development in the area and noted that whilst there were few empty sites on the Esplanade, there was potential for redevelopment of some of the existing properties, and this could result in changes to the overall character of the area.

 

It was noted that the building was close to the site boundaries, resulting in narrow accessways to either side.  However, it was noted that these would be screened from the Esplanade by entrance gates.

 

Whilst no parking is to be provided, the Panel were aware of the policies in this respect and that this could be acceptable under the guidelines of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

It was noted that the balconies returned at the sides of the building and would be very close to properties either side.  Whilst Panel considered the design and appearance of this to be acceptable, they questioned the possible effect on the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties.

 

Materials and finishes for the building were questioned, and it was acknowledged that the plans indicate a rendered appearance but that this should be confirmed.  In particular, the Panel noted that design of building would result in the balcony soffits being particularly prominent and the finishes to this aspect should be specified.

 

The panel commented that the perspective drawings were particularly helpful in assessing the scheme and confirmed that the overall design approach was acceptable.

 

Proposal has been subject to consultations with a Civil, Structural and Geotechnical Engineer regarding possible ground stability implications.  In this respect, consultant advises that he has some knowledge of this site as he acted for the Council at the time when a Dangerous Structure Notice was served on the former owner of the property due to ground movement affecting the building in 1988.  He advises that, in 1988, the front of the property suffered from back-tilting of about 3 inches across its depth and that the right hand side of the property also suffered from severe distortion caused by the thrust from the side retaining wall, and the rear retaining wall to this section was on the point of failure.  In 1988 the rear half of the property was derelict but evidently had suffered through taking thrust from the high retaining wall at the rear.

 

The Council's Consulting Engineer advises that the position of this site in relation to any likely slip is such that the weight of the building could be beneficial.  He considers that the report which accompanied the application is reasonably thorough and its conclusions as to the type of foundation and superstructure which would be suitable is satisfactory.  However, he considered that a number of points relating to differential settlement, stability during demolition and construction and new retaining walls needed to be addressed. He concluded that the site investigation report and general approach were satisfactory although more information was required to ensure that local stability to the adjacent properties is maintained during demolition and construction and to ensure that the building will not be adversely affected by movements caused by landslip, particularly horizontal movement.

 

Council's Consulting Engineer has considered the revised proposal together with the suggested method statement and considers that the latter describes a reasonable course of action.  Whilst he would normally expect much of the investigative work and a more fully worked up design, particularly with regard to the jacking system, to be done before planning permission was granted, he considers that, in this instance, approval could be granted subject to conditions requiring submission of further details in this respect.

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Ventnor Town Council raised no objection to the original submission, subject to checks on ground stability.

 

Ventnor Town Council object to revised scheme on grounds of over-development of the site, that the proposed development is out of keeping with the area and detrimental to adjoining properties.  They express the view that any development on this site should not exceed four storeys.

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

 

Original submission attracted six letters from local residents, including one from and on behalf of occupants of three flats within the adjacent property, objecting to proposal and raising the following issues:

 

·         Accepted that site is an eyesore and is in need of redevelopment.

 

·         Concern expressed that construction work will seriously impact on stability of surrounding properties.

 

·         Overdevelopment.

 

·         Loss of privacy.

 

·         Loss of light.

 

·         No parking to be provided in area where such facilities are already at a premium.

 

·         Access to be made to Alma Road, which is un-adopted.

 

·         Proposal is out of keeping – development is unattractive and does not reflect character of the surrounding area, detrimental to the amenities of the locality.

 

·         Inappropriate materials for area, should reflect Ventnor’s Victorian image.

 

The revised plans attracted a further ten letters from local residents, including one from and on behalf of occupants of three flats within the adjacent property, and letters from Isle of Wight Society and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, objecting to proposal and raising additional points as follows:

 

·         Shops will be an  asset to the esplanade but number of flats above is excessive bearing in mind density of dwellings in area.

 

·         Council has report in its possession suggesting that only light timber framed building should be constructed on site.

 

·         Proposed building would be higher than adjoining properties – this is visually unacceptable.

 

·         Increase in height of building in revised proposal would exacerbate impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

·         Adverse impact on adjacent Conservation Area.

 

·         New design does not reflect Victorian architecture in locality and lends itself more to Florida or Spain.

 

·         Proposal would detract from Victorian charm of area, a feature which attracts visitors to the Island.

 

·         Building would be intensive and dominate the bay to detriment of character of seafront.

 

·         Garaging or parking should be provided.

 

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

 

EVALUATION

 

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposed building is of an appropriate size, scale, height, design and general appearance or would detract from the amenities of the area and neighbouring occupiers.  In addition, having regard to location of site, ground stability implications are an important consideration and, in particular, whether proposal would give rise to instability to adjacent land and buildings.

 

It is accepted that the design of the proposed building bears no resemblance to the neighbouring properties and does not reflect the more traditional Victorian character of Ventnor.  However, it is considered that the building is, in its own right, not unattractive and incorporates a number of interesting features which contribute to its overall design.  In particular, the balconies are considered to be a major feature of the building, dominating the front elevation, with projections beyond the side elevations and curved fronts emphasised by a stainless steel handrail.  The submitted plans indicate that the building will be finished in a white painted render, which is not uncommon in the immediate locality, and white powder coated aluminium double glazed windows.

 

In terms of the scale and overall height of the development, the submitted plans indicate that the principal element of the building is only marginally higher than the property to the east which, although only three storeys in height, is elevated some 5.5 metres above the level of the Esplanade with a high retaining wall immediately abutting the back edge of the public highway.  Small element forming part of the stairwell to the proposed building would project some 1 metre (excluding a finial) above the main roof of the building, providing more interest to the roofscape.  The site and neighbouring properties have been the subject of a detailed level survey and I am advised by the applicant's agent that the neighbouring properties have been physically measured.

 

Whilst Ventnor is characterised by a strong Victorian theme, there is a mix of dwelling types and styles within the area, particularly along the Esplanade, and a number of more modern additions have been successfully accommodated within the town, one of the most recent examples involved the redevelopment of the Rex Cinema site in Church Street.  I consider that the variation in the design of buildings along the Esplanade provides a greater degree of flexibility in the design approach to new buildings and I am satisfied that the proposal can be accommodated within this site without detracting from the amenities and character of the immediate locality.  This view is supported by the comments of the Architects' Panel. With regard to the suggestion that proposal will adversely impact on the adjacent Conservation Area, the site is approximately 140 metres from the boundary of the designated area and is considered to be a sufficient distance away so as not to have an adverse impact on the setting of the area.

 

Proposal would result in a substantial building which will have some impact on neighbouring properties.  In particular, layout of the balconies would potentially give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.  However, following discussions with applicant's agent, it is considered that it would be possible to provide screening to the sides of the balconies in order to minimise any overlooking which would otherwise occur.  Concern has also been expressed that proposal would result in loss of light to neighbouring properties.  Whilst noting these concerns, it is considered that, having regard to the number of windows involved and their position within the neighbouring properties in relation to the proposed building, refusal on grounds of loss of light would not be justified.

 

Site is, for most part, bounded to rear by private land with pedestrian only access in northwestern corner from Alma Road.  Having regard to this factor, together with the topography of the site, provision of vehicular access and parking to the rear is not in my opinion possible.  Furthermore, I consider that any proposal to provide parking to the front of the side would detract from any development and would potentially create a hazard for other highway users.  Whilst concern has been raised that development of site without off-street parking may cause further congestion and parking on Alma Road, I consider that the steepness and narrowness of this road would dissuade residents from doing so.  Many of the properties along the Esplanade do not have the benefit of off-road parking facilities and parking is generally available either on the road or within car parks at eastern and western end of the Esplanade.  Whilst these facilities will be well used during summer months, I do not consider that there is a problem with congestion on the roads in this area or that refusal of the application on grounds that the proposal does not make provision for on-site parking would be justified.

 

The application was accompanied by a ground stability report and further information submitted in the form of a suggested Method Statement for construction works and, following consultations with the Council's Consulting Geotechnical Engineer, it is considered that, whilst further information in this respect will be required prior to work commencing on site, the applicants have satisfied the requirements of PPG14.  In this respect, and notwithstanding the exercise carried out by the Authority in determining the ground stability implications associated with the development, PPG14 clearly indicates that the responsibility for determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests primarily with the developer.  In this respect, the PPG advises as follows:

 

"In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and/or the landowner.  It is in any case in the developer's own interests to determine whether land is unstable or potentially unstable since this will affect the value of the land and the costs of developing it.  The developer should therefore make a thorough investigation and assessment of the ground to ensure that it is stable or that any actual or potential instability can be overcome by appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures."

 

Side elevations of buildings to east and west contain a number of windows overlooking the site.  The position of these windows has been compared with those within the side elevations of the proposed building and I am satisfied that no direct conflict would arise in this respect.  In particular, majority of windows within building to west are set back from the boundary a distance of some 8 metres.  Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the provision of the windows within the side elevation of the proposed building will not give rise to direct conflict with windows within the neighbouring properties or give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.  Similarly, windows within the rear elevation of the building at first, second and third floor level would look out onto the slope at the rear of the site with only windows at fourth and fifth floor level having a view across land to rear of site which is at higher level.  Again, having regard to the distances between these windows and properties to the rear, I do not consider that they would give rise to unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy.

 

The provision of commercial units at ground floor are considered to be an asset to the area contributing to both local and tourist economy and I am satisfied that, subject to appropriate restrictions on the use of these premises, they will not detract from the amenity of the area in general or occupiers of neighbouring properties and the flats within the development.

 

As a result of discussions with the applicant's agent following the Committee Site Inspection, further information has been submitted in support of the proposal, including plans showing the effects of reducing the height of the building by one storey. In a letter which accompanied these plans, the applicant's agent indicates that careful consideration has been given to the height of the building but they are of the opinion that to reduce the building by one storey would actually detract from the appearance of the development by creating a "dogs tooth" effect along the sky line. However, the plans have been revised to show a reduction in the height of the stair tower to the rear of the building. The applicant's agent expresses the view that their architect has now created an innovative design that will add to and enhance the area.

 

The applicant's agent has also given consideration to incorporating into the scheme energy saving devices and a grey water system. In terms of energy saving, applicant's agent indicates that building will have to meet the latest standards for insulation under the Building Regulations which have recently been greatly increased. Whilst consideration has been given to use of photovoltaics on the building, the applicant's agents advises that the design, incorporating a curved roof structure, does not lend itself to the normal flat photovoltaic units. However, he indicates that the manufacturers are making and developing a flexible membrane that could be used, although initial investigation show that the cost would be prohibitive with very little gain and this matter will be considered further at the development stage.

 

Applicant's agent has also investigated the possibility of incorporating a grey water system in the scheme and advises that the main problem this presents is the size of the storage tanks that would be required. Members will recall that, in order to address potential ground stability problems, the building has been designed with a basement, which would contain levelling jacks and have fairly limited headroom. I am advised that any storage tanks to be used in connection with a grey water system would be too large to fit into the basement area. Furthermore, due to the limited area available within the site, the applicant's agent has been unable to identify an alternative location for such tanks. Nevertheless, they have indicated that such a system appears to be relatively inexpensive and will therefore continue to investigate  this matter further.

 

I would remind Members that this proposal involves development of a brownfield site within the development boundary for Ventnor as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle. Whilst Policy D13 (Energy Conservation) of the Plan encourages implementation of measures for the conservation of energy, I do not consider that, in this instance, the absence of measures, such as photovoltaic cells and a grey water system, would provide a sustainable reason for refusal of the application.  The applicant will of course be required to satisfy the quite stringent requirements under the Building Regulations, including U values for insulation, which, for instance, seek to ensure that heat loss from the building is kept to a minimum thereby having a consequence for energy use.  I would suggest that, should Members be minded to approve the application,  a letter is sent to the applicant's agent advising that the best available techniques and materials should be used in the construction of the building in order to maximise energy conservation.

 

I remain of the opinion that the height of the building is not excessive and is in fact only marginally higher than the neighbouring properties. I would concur with the view expressed by applicant's agent that a reduction in height by one storey would result in a building which would not sit comfortably with its neighbours and would result in inconsistencies in the height of the buildings. Therefore, applicant's agent has not unreasonably requested that the application is considered in its original form. 

 

HUMAN RIGHTS

 

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered.  Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed.  Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant.  It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the 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, whilst proposal involves introduction of a substantial building in a prominent sea front location, it is of a good design and appropriate in terms of its scale and overall height and will not, in my opinion, detract from the amenities of the locality.  Furthermore, whilst the proposal will clearly have some impact on neighbouring properties, I am satisfied that, subject to provision of appropriate screening to balconies, development will not result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy or result in a significant loss of light to neighbouring properties which would justify refusal of the application.  In view of the above comments, I do not consider that there is any sustainable planning objection to the proposal and I recommend accordingly.

 

1.         RECOMMENDATION - Approval

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

1

Time limit - full   -   A10

2

Prior to any work commencing on site a detailed method statement, including full details of the foundation design, including the proposed jacking system, and full details of a site investigation as set out in the suggested Method Statement (dated December 2003) together with measures to be adopted during the construction phase to ensure that development does not cause instability to adjoining retaining walls and buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To minimise risk of development causing instability to adjoining land and buildings and to comply with the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, and Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3

Construction of the building 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.  Such details shall include materials to be used in the balustrading on and to the underside of the balconies.  Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4

The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5

All material resulting from the demolition of the existing building and 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 on the submitted plans.  The material shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the building hereby approved 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.

6

Prior to any of the flats within the building hereby approved being occupied, screens shall be erected on the eastern and western perimeter of the balconies, with the exception of those at first floor level.  Such screening shall have a minimum height of 1.8 metres above the decking of the balcony on which it is situated and shall be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.  Thereafter, the screening shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7

Prior to the flats hereby approved being occupied, lockable gates shall be provided to the pedestrian accesses either side of the building in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the gates shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason:  To reduce the opportunities for crime and to comply with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8

Prior to the commercial units at ground floor level being brought into use, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended business hours of the activities to be undertaken therein.  The uses shall not commence until these hours have been approved, or amended as necessary, by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the premises shall only open/operate during the approved hours. 

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and future residential occupiers of the development itself and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

9

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order, the commercial units at ground floor level shall be used only for purposes within Classes A1 (Retail) or A3 (Food & Drink) of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and the development itself and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10

No deliveries to or despatches from the commercial units within the development hereby approved shall take place outside the hours of 0700 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays.

 

Reason:  In the interest of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential property and future occupants of the flats hereby approved and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11

Prior to any use falling within Class A3 (Food & Drink) of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, the Local Planning authority shall be notified of the intended range of foods to be prepared and sold at the premises together with details of an extract ventilation system to include the point at which emissions are released to the atmosphere and the elevations of nearby premises.  The use of the premises for such purposes shall not commence until such details have been approved and the extraction system installed in accordance with the agreed details.   Thereafter, only the approved range of foods shall be sold from the premises and the extract ventilation system shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details.

 

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and occupiers of neighbouring properties and the flats hereby approved in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

2.         RECOMMENDATION - That a letter is sent to the applicant's agent suggesting that investigations into the use of measures for the conservation of energy and a grey water system continue and that best available techniques and materials are used in the construction of the building to maximise energy conservation.

 

 

 

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services