PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

           TCP/25074                                 Mrs C Thomas against refusal for demolition of single storey extension and construction of two storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at 21 Harding Road, Ryde.

 

           TCP/1152/E                                Mr A Macleod against refusal for two storey extension to form additional living accommodation at Meadcott, Heathfield Road, Bembridge.

 

           TCPL/14420/R                           Hotels Direct Limited against refusal for demolition of detached garage and single storey extension; conversion of part of hotel to form 8 flats at Tenerife Hotel, The Strand, Ryde.

 

           TCP/19153/H                             N H W Pethick against refusal for two storey extension to flats 1 and 4 to provide additional living accommodation at Norman Court, Quarry View, Camphill, Newport.

 

           TCP/2425/T                                Mr K Farr against refusal for retention of two holiday lets and conversion of barn to form two holiday lets, Puckaster Farm, Puckaster Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor.  

 


 

2         HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

           LDC/24579                                 G and C Blake in respect of refusal of Lawful Development Certificate for the continued use of premises for the preparation of fish and shellfish at Blake and Spencer, Esplanade, Ventnor. Inquiry to take place on 23 April 2003.

 


 

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

           (a)       TCP/24660                     Mr & Mrs Barrett against refusal for first floor extension for additional living accommodation at 37 St. Johns Road, Ryde.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 5 April 2002.

           

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 26 November 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The impact of the proposed extension upon the appearance of the surrounding area.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The extension would not relate to the existing modest scale of this pair of late Victorian cottages and would appear as a somewhat alien feature in the street scene.

 

           •          The unrelieved brick flank wall and pitched roof would project above the existing ground floor structures to the rear of this pair of semi-detached cottages.

 

           •          The scale and siting of the extension would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would conflict with UDP policies.

............ .............................................................................................................................................           

           (b)       TCP/884/N                      Mr D F Weeks against refusal for demolition of store and workshop and construction of a chalet bungalow at site of Coach House, Southdown Road, Freshwater.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 4 January 2002.

 

           Appeal Decisions:                    Allowed - 26 November 2002.

 

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

 

           •          The impact of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the AONB.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The site is within an area of low density residential development with a dwelling adjacent to the southeast and houses and apartments opposite.

 

           •          The proposed development would represent a minor extension to a ribbon of housing development and such proposals may be permissible under PPG 7.

 

           •          The residential development on both sides of the Southdown Road, the mature screening and the existence of a run down building on the site are all factors that favour a grant of planning permission.

 

           •          The proposal has a similar footprint to the original structure..

 

           •          The low key development with some additional landscaping will meet UDP and PPG7 objectives of protecting the natural beauty of the AONB.

 

           •          The 1998 appeal which was dismissed involved a much larger proposal which may well have had an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the AONB.


.....................................................................................................................................................

 


           (c)       TCP/16327/G                 Wise Homes against refusal for a four storey block of 8 flats with parking area, land between 44 and 46 West Hill Road, Ryde.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 18 February 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 26 November 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The likely impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the St. Johns Conservation Area.

 

           •          The effect of the scheme upon the living conditions of nearby residents.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          Planning permission for development of the appeal site with 8 flats has existed for some 13 years but has not been implemented.

 

           •          Since that time there have been changes in policy planning terms and government guidance.

 

           •          The proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

 

           •          There is no objection in principle to some form of residential development on this site but the present scheme fails to provide a sufficient gap between buildings.

 

           •          The closure of the gap fails to preserve meaningful views of the wooded area to the rear or the retain adequate separation between the two buildings.

 

           •          The limited distance between the proposed flats and the north flank elevation of number 46 would have a direct impact on the residents of the flats at number 46 by the proximity of a substantial area of largely unrelieved brick work four storeys in height at a distance of only 3 metres.

           .....................................................................................................................................................

 

           (d)       TCP/14672/D                  Mr & Mrs C G McMenamin against refusal for alterations to existing house and the erection of two houses adjacent at 24 Bank Gardens, Ryde.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 4 September 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 2 December 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties with particular regard for the visual impact of the northern most dwelling.                                   

           

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          Development to the rear of the existing dwelling would not relate comfortably with any frontage and would appear incongruous within its setting.

 

 

           •          The gap in the development which presently contributes significantly towards the existing character of the northern arm of Bank Gardens would be seriously eroded.

 

           •          When viewed from the north, the height and bulk of the proposed dwellings would be exaggerated by the difference in levels.

 

           •          In this particular setting the proposed development would look cramped and obtrusive and would detract from the quality of the town scape.

 

           •          The northern and west elevations of the northern most of the proposed dwellings would appear oppressively bulky when viewed from properties in Green Street and Bank Gardens.

 

           •          The northern most of the proposed dwellings would block out part of the important relationship between the properties and the associated loss of openness would significantly harm living conditions for the occupiers.

 

           •          The proposal would be contrary to UDP policies and national guidance.

....................................................................................................................................................

 

           (e)       TCP/6079/J                            Mr R Charlo against Enforcement Notice which requires compliance with condition for flats to be occupied for holiday purposes only at 34 Atherley Road, Shanklin.

 

           Officer Recommendation:               Enforcement Action to comply with the holiday occupancy condition.

 

           Committee Decision:                       Enforcement Action - 12 March 2002.

 

           Appeal Decision:                             Allowed - 2 December 2002


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The suitability of the property for permanent residential use.

 

           •          The effect of the loss of holiday units on tourism needs of the area.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          Internally each of the flats offers a level of accommodation which is suitable for permanent residential occupation.

 

           •          The external amenity space is limited but likely to be of little importance as the flats are particularly suited to single occupants or couples with no children.

           •          The flats are unsuitable for modern self catering requirements and are likely to be unattractive to tourists.

 

           •          The loss of flats as holiday accommodation would not have an adverse effect on the tourist industry and there is no conflict with policies T1 and T10.

 

           •          The effect of the loss of the holiday flats on the character of Atherley Road would be slight given the mix of types of residential accommodation in the area.

 

           •          Atherley Road lies outside the hotel policy area and is therefore a secondary area in terms of the provision of holiday accommodation.


....................................................................................................................................................


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 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.