|
|
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.
Head of Planning Services