1.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE
AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some
circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL COMMITTEE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER
INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4.
YOU ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
(TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE
YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5.
THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY
ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are
advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior
to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
|
1. |
TCP/11277/K P/02093/02 land
adjoining Osborne Cottage, Main Road, Arreton, Newport, PO30 |
Arreton |
Conditional
Approval |
|
2. |
TCP/13691/G P/01510/03 land
between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport,
PO30 |
Newport |
Conditional
Approval |
|
3. |
TCP/18055/N P/01269/03 Hillis
Farm, Rolls Hill Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318ND |
Gurnard |
Conditional
Approval |
|
4. |
TCP/24820/B P/00548/03 43
High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334LU |
Wootton |
Refusal |
|
5. |
TCP/25521 P/00644/03 land
north of, Redshank Way, Newport, PO30 |
Newport |
Conditional
Approval |
ON REPORT
TO COMMITTEE – 14 OCTOBER 2003
(a) TCP/3513/E land rear of 2 Hungerberry Close Shanklin
|
1. |
TCP/11277/K P/02093/02 Parish/Name: Arreton
Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 14/11/2002 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: M Gough Builders Terrace of 3 houses, access &
parking area, (readvertised application) land adjoining Osborne Cottage,
Main Road, Arreton, Newport, PO30 |
This application was originally
submitted to seek consent for two detached dwellings, but was deferred at
officer's request to enable the negotiation of a more dense scheme. Following consideration at the meeting on 1
July 2003, further information and design improvements have been sought and
achieved. The application is returned
for reconsideration.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by local Member as
she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the
delegated procedure.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site is located on the northeast
side of Main Road approximately 150 metres northwest of the junction with
Cherrywood View. It has a frontage of
about 25 metres and a depth of about 19 metres (max) and situated between
existing residential properties contained within the ribbon of development off
Arreton Street. The site falls away
from the road, its rear boundary adjoining Arreton Stream, a watercourse
flowing at the backs of the properties in Arreton Street in a southeasterly
direction.
To the southeast of the site is a
pair of red brick semi-detached houses whilst to the northwest of the site is a
pair of cottages immediately abutting the footpath. Beyond is an access track and footpath serving the residential
properties, set some way back from the highway. There is an existing vehicular access to the site and the site
contains two septic tanks serving the adjoining properties to the northwest.
Arreton Street is a long narrow
ribbon of development and with the exception of Hazely Combe, Cherrywood View
and development around the church and Arreton Barns, comprises a ribbon of
development with shallow sites fronting the main road.
RELEVANT HISTORY
House and garage were approved on
the southeastern part of this site in November 1990, renewed in January
1996. A vehicular access adjoining the
extreme northwestern end of the site was approved in February 2001 and the
planning permission for the house and garage was subsequently renewed again in
December 2001.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Full consent sought for erection of
a terrace of three houses with a vehicular access and parking area. Plans show dwellings to be sited approximately
3 metres back from the front boundary, vehicular accesses in north west end of
the frontage with provision made for access and parking to the adjoining
property to the northwest. Removal of
both septic tanks and replacement of new sewage management plant in extreme
north corner of the site with treated discharge water into Arreton Stream. Three individual essentially two storey
properties, each comprising living room/kitchen and WC on ground floor with two
bedrooms and bathroom on first floor, with a third en-suite bedroom in the roof
space. Dwellings shown to be
approximately 1.8 metres apart.
Dwellings proposed to be constructed in facing brick under concrete
interlocking tiled roofs.
Additional details supplied by the
agent confirm that the sewage treatment plant will be designed to service five
properties by a specialist company to the satisfaction of the Environment
Agency; that an attenuation tank will be installed to deal with surface/storm
water discharge from the site, again designed to a correct specification. Points out that elevational enhancements
have been included.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Land is shown to be within
designated development envelope as shown on Arreton inset X on Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. Policies G1,
G4, D1, D2 of UDP apply and PPG3 supports development which utilises land
within development envelopes more economically, also steers residential
development towards areas designated or within development envelopes.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Environment Agency raise no
objection subject to safeguards.
Highway Engineer recommends
conditions if approved.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Parish Council object on grounds of
excessive development and inadequate amenity space for each unit; difficulties
with sewerage discharge. Land is liable
to flooding from the main road and the stream; land has a steep incline towards
the stream.
Parish Council consider the revised
scheme to be overdevelopment, questions discharge to stream, suggest liable to
flooding from road and stream. Objects
and requests site inspection.
Arreton Parish Council comment:
"The Parish Council
thinks that three terraced houses here is still too many for the site. Also the proposal to discharge water from
the sewage system into the stream is unacceptable, as the village school has
been refused permission to do this. It
is requested that Members of the Development Committee visit the site to see
how little room there is here for this development. There is still the question of flooding both from the road
because of the slope of the land and from the stream which is very close to the
rear boundary. Therefore, the Council
objects to this planning application."
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Original scheme:
Five letters of objection from local
residents on grounds of inaccuracies in the plan (mainly identification of
properties); inadequate drainage; overdevelopment; overlooking; stating that
the septic tank is too near their property and that it will discharge treated
water to the watercourse; that the development is incompatible as it is two
dwellings and the properties are sited too far back from the highway to be in
keeping with the general pattern of development.
Readvertised scheme and latest plan:
Sewage treatment plant too close to
property. Objects to discharge of water
into Arreton Stream. Increased
vehicular activity impacts on property.
Overlooking of rear garden, inadequate parking, inadequate detail on
plans, overdevelopment, inadequacy and inability of septic tank to cope. Possibility of flooding from the
stream. Noise and disturbance caused by
an increase in vehicular traffic. No
changes to scheme.
EVALUATION
This is a site located within the
designated development envelope in what is mostly a ribbon of development
fronting Arreton Street. Given the fact
that the development envelope includes this site, the principle of residential
development is not questioned, especially since there is a valid permission for
a single dwelling granted and renewed over the last twelve years. Despite the fact that a single dwelling has
been approved, the use of the site for three dwellings should be determined on
the basis of whether or not the development works practically and the resultant
density.
Bearing in mind the existing
development in the vicinity, particularly to the southeast, it would appear
that three dwellings on this site would
result in a slightly higher density of development. PPG3 supports the increase in densities generally and policies D1
and D2 seek to provide development with an acceptable impact on adjoining
properties through the design and layout of the scheme. The principle of
residential development of three dwellings is considered therefore to be
acceptable as it results in the best use of the land.
The Highway Engineer has recommended
conditions if approved, indicating that matters relating to access and parking
can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site.
In design terms, Arreton Street is
not a Conservation Area but development should be compatible with surrounding
development within which it is to be accommodated. In terms of scale and mass, the three dwellings fit into the
street scene satisfactorily, increased frontage depth since development in the
immediate vicinity, especially to the northwest does not obey a rigid building
line, but it is close to the back of the footpath.
The site is partially presently
occupied by two septic tanks and the proposal involves removal of these and
their replacement with a sewage management plant located in the extreme
northern corner, with the new dwellings discharging into it before its
discharge of treated water into the Arreton Stream. The existing septic tanks are to be removed and replaced by a
single treatment plant but I am assured by the Building Inspector that, subject
to a satisfactory specification for the sewage management plant, there is no
reason why both the existing and the proposed plots could not be adequately
served. Removal of the existing septic
tanks and the provision of the new and the connection of the existing
properties to it will be a matter of legal agreement between the developer and
the owners of the properties concerned and the arrangements for servicing the
new plant will also be for their agreement.
However, it would be desirable if the sewage management plant were
installed and operational prior to commencement of any other works on the site.
Members will note that the
Environment Agency are satisfied with the proposed scheme as will be seen from
the consultee response above.
With regard to effect on adjoining
properties, most windows are restricted to the front and rear elevations and in
the case of plot 1, only landing and toilet windows have been included in the
gable end, but these can be obscure glazed windows. Plot 3 is the same and these can also be obscure glazed.
In design terms, the terrace of
smaller dwellings is considered to be more in keeping with the character of
this village location. The street scene
shows the overall height to be similar to that of the adjoining property to the
south east, enough though the roof space is intended to be used for
accommodation. It includes only a
single roof light to the rear slope to provide light and ventilation to the
bedroom. This will not be apparent in
the street scene.
Following the Committee's previous
consideration, further plans and details have been received including
enhancement to the design, variation to individual treatment of units and
materials. A larger scale plan is now
included to show the access and parking arrangements
in greater detail. A section through the site shows the mass,
height and relationship to the existing property to the east. I remain of the opinion that the proposals
are acceptable.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on
the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there
may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced
with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner
proposed. Insofar as there is an
interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
This is a site within the
development envelope, flanked by other residential property and the site has
had a consent for a residential property in the past. Current proposal seeks to use the land in a more economic way,
developing with two smaller dwellings.
Arreton Street is a mix of residential ages, styles, designs and
materials and two dwellings with smaller curtilages will still fit in with the
character of the street scene. The
development will therefore be consistent with policies H5, D1, D2 and G1 of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Construction of the
buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all
materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the
same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter only such
approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the
development. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials
and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the
development is commenced. Development
shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of
maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
conditions 3 and 6 of this permission a wall of one metre in height, in
materials to be agreed as part of the submission of details as required by
condition 2, shall be constructed along the full width of the frontage except
for the sections required for access. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities and character of the area and in accordance with Policy D1 of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Prior to commencement
of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall
be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over
the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater
than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
6 |
Visibility splays of x
= 2.4m and y = 120m dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of
the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
7 |
Vehicular access -
J30 |
|
8 |
The access and crossing
of the highway footway shall be
constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification
for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or
brought into use: Footway Construction
(strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The car parking and turning
areas shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice
shall be installed before the dwellings are occupied and retained thereafter
for the use of occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate
off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
The development shall
not be brought into use until a suitable turning space is provided within the
site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in
accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This space shall
thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
No development shall
take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or
contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; hard surfacing materials. Reason: To ensure the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
All of the existing
properties and the proposed properties hereby approved shall be connected to
a new sewage disposal system and development shall not commence until
drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate
system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with
Policy U11(Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order),
no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes (A, B, C and
E) of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of
the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or
without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly
authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of
the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
The windows included in
the northwest elevation of plot 1 and the south east elevation of plot 3
shall be glazed and shall thereafter be maintained in obscured glass and only
the top half of the window shall be opening with the remaining, lower half
fixed shut. Reason: In the interests of the
adjoining residential property and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2. |
TCP/13691/G P/01510/03 Parish/Name:
Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West Registration Date: 28/07/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr A Lucas 2 detached houses with
garages; vehicular access, (revised
scheme) land between 'Spindles' (62) and
Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application has proved to be
particularly contentious and has raised a number of issues that warrant
committee consideration.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application, the
processing of which has taken eleven weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed
eight week period for determination of applications because of the need to
ensure receipt of all consultee comments and the need for committee
consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to an
irregular shaped site surrounded on all sides by residential properties. To the south is a prominent Grade II Listed
Building (Harewood Lodge), to the north east is a split level bungalow
(Spindles), immediately north west are properties fronting Nodgham Lane and to
the south east are properties fronting Clatterford Road separated from the
application site by the driveway serving Harewood Lodge.
The site slopes away from the north
west to the south east boundary and contains a number of trees, three of which
are protected by a recently confirmed Tree Preservation Order. There is a substantial 2 metre high beech
hedge between the site and the property to the north east with a 1.8 metre high
leylandi hedge along part of the rear boundary. Although the application site is under the same ownership as
Harewood Lodge, the two are almost totally separated by a line of substantial
natural growth consisting of both deciduous and coniferous specimens.
The application site, Spindles,
Harewood Lodge and 60 Clatterford Road are served by a shared access drive off
Clatterford Road. This has a metalled
finish and varies in width from 3.6 metres to 2.6 metres.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Outline consent, including siting
and means of access, was conditionally approved for two bungalows in January
2001.
Detailed consent was refused for two
houses in June of this year under the delegated powers procedure. Reasons for refusal can be summarised as
follows:
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Full consent is sought for two
detached houses. Both houses would be
dug into the slope so that they appear two storey from the front and single
storey at the back. The houses have
been designed with their living accommodation at first floor level in order to
benefit from the distant views. Each
house would have four bedrooms (one en suite), bathroom and an attached garage
at ground floor level with a lounge, dining room, kitchen/diner and a WC at
first floor level. There would be a
balcony across part of the front and over the side garage of each dwelling.
Although both proposed houses would
offer a similar level of accommodation, plot 1 (closest to Harewood Lodge)
would be marginally smaller and less detailed in design than plot 2, (nearest
to Spindles). Both houses would be
finished with cedar cladding and colour washed render under a slate roof. The three protected trees and the
substantial belt of natural growth between the application site and Harewood
Lodge are shown to be retained. The
dwelling on plot 1 is shown to be approximately 18 metres north of Harewood
Lodge and 3 metres from the north western boundary. The dwelling on plot 2 would be situated approximately 2 metres
away from the beech hedge along the north eastern boundary and some 15 metres
from the nearest part of Spindles. It
is proposed to widen the access at the junction with Clatterford Road in order
to facilitate the additional traffic associated with the proposed development.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
PPG3 (Housing) encourages the
efficient use of land in urban areas but stresses that this should not be at
the expense of cramped development. The
government attaches particular importance to the "greening" of
residential environments and states that landscaping should be an integral part
of new development and opportunities should be taken for the retention of
existing trees and shrubs, and for new plantings.
The site is situated within the
development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
and is also situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The following UDP policies are
considered applicable:
S1 - New development will
be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S6 - All development will
be expected to be of a high standard of design.
S10 - In areas of
designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic
or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or
enhance the features of special character of these areas.
G1 - Development
Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 - General Locational
Criteria for Development.
D1 - Standards of Design.
B2 - Settings of Listed
Buildings.
H4 - Unallocated Residential
Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements.
H5 - Infill Development.
C2 - Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
C12 - Development
Affecting Trees and Woodland.
TR7 - Highway
Considerations for New Development.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends
conditions should application be approved.
The Council's Conservation Officer
states:
"On the
understanding that the trees and landscaping as shown on the plans will be
retained and controlled by conditions, I am of the opinion that the revised
details for the dwellings would not adversely affect the setting of the Listed
Building, or the longer distant views of the site from the Conservation Area in
the vicinity of Carisbrooke Castle."
Senior Countryside Officer states:
"Given
the existing outline consent I can see no reason to refuse it now. The most important tree to protect is the
sycamore between the two plots. I have
made a TPO to protect this tree and others on the site, because of the effect
on the views.... The sycamore in
particular, although a good specimen, is vulnerable because of its location and
special precautions are necessary to ensure that it is undamaged. This should include a condition that the
driveway, which encroaches on the crown of the tree, is (and remains) a
permeable surface laid over the existing ground level, so that no root
disturbance occurs nor loss of soil drainage or aeration."
The AONB Planning and Information
Officer states:
"Further to our
comments on earlier schemes for this proposal, we do appreciate some attempt
has been made in terms of revised siting to enable these houses to sit more
comfortably in the landscape, particularly in terms of retaining tree cover.
However, we remain
concerned at the proposed height and scale of this revised scheme, particularly
considering the adjacent property (Spindles) is a bungalow. We suggest that the applicant submits a
photo montage to illustrate how the proposed development would sit in the
landscape in relation to adjoining properties, in order to assess its impact on
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty."
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
None.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Carisbrooke West Community Forum
objects on grounds of overdevelopment and also has concerns over increased
traffic, and parking related problems for Clatterford Road residents.
Five letters of objection from
neighbours and local residents which can be summarised as follows:
CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The site is within the development
envelope for Newport and is the subject of an extant outline consent for two
bungalows. The principle of two
dwellings is therefore established.
Therefore, the main consideration in respect of this proposal is whether
the developer has satisfactorily overcome the previous reasons for refusal in
order to justify approval of this latest application.
SETTING OF LISTED
BUILDING
The Listed Building dates
from the early nineteenth century and is a villa style dwelling with a low
pitched hipped roof, rendered elevations and a distinctive veranda. Although situated outside of the
Conservation Area, it is a prominent feature in the landscape, particularly
when viewed from the grounds of Carisbrooke Castle where the building is seen
against a background of a garden with tree screening.
The latest proposal shows
that the dwelling on plot 1, which would be closest to the Listed Building, has
been reduced in size and the design simplified in order to reduce the visual
impact. The dwelling has also been
positioned to minimise its impact on existing trees and landscape screening
between plot 1 and the Listed Building.
On the basis of the distance between the Listed Building and plot 1 (some
18 metres), the presence of substantial trees and landscaping together with the
revised design proposals, I am of the opinion that the proposed development
would not adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building, or the longer
distant views of the site from the Conservation Area in the vicinity of
Carisbrooke Castle.
LANDSCAPE SETTING
The site does have
important landscape characteristics that contribute to the pleasant suburban
character of this part of Carisbrooke.
Such features are particularly important when viewed from Carisbrooke
Castle as it is from this direction that the character of the built environment
between Clatterford Road and Nodgham Lane, i.e. low density, detached houses,
offset amongst mature trees, is fully realised.
It is my opinion that the
revised proposals have due regard to the landscape features of the site. The three trees recently protected by a TPO
are shown to be retained. All three of
these trees play an important role, but the sycamore is considered to be the most
important because of its potential to partially screen the proposed development
from Carisbrooke Castle. The spatial
relationship of this development with the sycamore is similar, if not arguably
better, than the siting of the two bungalows as approved under the extant
outline consent. The Council's Senior
Countryside Officer is also of the view that the latest proposal is acceptable
on landscape grounds, particularly when considering the outline consent. He does, however, suggest a condition
stating that the driveway, which partially encroaches on the crown spread of
the tree is (and remains) a permeable surface laid over the existing ground
level, so that no root disturbance occurs, nor loss of soil drainage or
aeration.
DESIGN
Previous application
proposed two houses which, other than being handed, were identical in all
respects. This was considered to be a
form of repetitive development that would not have fitted comfortably into its
surroundings because of the mix of dwellings in proximity to the application
site. Views from Carisbrooke Castle
show Victorian style semi detached houses, substantial detached properties,
bungalows and chalet bungalows.
Although there are clear similarities between plots 1 and 2, I am of the
opinion that they are sufficiently different to overcome the previous reason
for refusal.
In terms of the actual
design, there can be no doubt that the external appearance of both dwellings is
individual and would bear little resemblance to other dwellings in the
immediate area. It is my opinion that
this should not necessarily be seen as a negative aspect of the proposed
development, particularly when considering the mix of dwelling types
surrounding the application site. Also,
the simplified design and reduced scale of plot 1 will help to reduce the
visual impact of that property relative to the adjoining Listed Building.
One objector has made
specific reference to a condition on the outline consent which states that the
approved dwellings should be single storey only in the interests of the
amenities of the area. It was
recognised at the time of the outline consent that two single storey properties
would have limited impact on the surrounding area with that impact likely to be
greater in the winter rather than the summer when trees are not in leaf. Two houses as proposed would most certainly
be greater in scale and mass than the two bungalows approved under the outline
consent but, in my opinion, would not appear cramped or out of character
because of the sufficient space retained between buildings and the acceptable
design as detailed above.
ACCESS
Means of access was
considered at the time of the outline application. This included alterations to the existing access onto Clatterford
Road. The current proposal is the same
in access terms as the extant consent.
I therefore see no justifiable reason on highway grounds to withhold
consent. The proposed parking
arrangements for each dwelling comply with development plan policy.
In terms of the impact
upon the privacy and amenities currently enjoyed by neighbours, the main
concern to be addressed is the potential for overlooking from the proposed
windows and balconies. The proposed
dwellings would be situated approximately 30 metres away from the boundary
shared with the back gardens of Clatterford Road properties. Not only does this boundary comprise a high
evergreen hedge, but there is also a substantial belt of natural growth between
the proposed dwellings and the south eastern boundary. I am therefore of the opinion that any loss
of privacy to the nearby properties fronting Clatterford Road would not be of
significance.
The owner of Spindles is
concerned that the balcony serving plot 2 may give rise to overlooking and
general disturbance. The agent has
confirmed that the respective side of the balcony would be fitted with an
appropriate screen to minimise overlooking.
It is my opinion that the curved part of the balcony to the front would
not give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking. General disturbance is unlikely to be
significant particularly when considering that the balcony would be
approximately 20 metres away from the nearest part of Spindles. Furthermore, I would recommend a condition
in respect of the first floor side facing window to ensure that it is fitted
with obscure glass at all times as well as being kept fixed shut.
Concern has been
expressed regarding drainage and, in particular, if the existing private drain
serving Clatterford Road properties has sufficient capacity to accommodate
additional sewage. The agent has
recently confirmed that the proposed development would not tap into the
existing drain but would be taken straight to the public sewer via a new drain
to be laid along the line of the drive.
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
DECISION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report,
it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating two houses whilst
still retaining the main trees on site and without compromising the character
of the area which is designated as an AONB.
I am also of the opinion that the siting and design is such that the
amenities of the adjoining property occupiers would not be compromised by this
development. I therefore consider that
the proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained in the
UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Submission of samples -
S03 |
|
3 |
No development shall
take place until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water
disposal. Any such scheme shall
indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists
to ensure that additional flows do not cause overloading of the existing
system. The agreed system shall be
retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate
system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and
to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Prior to occupation of
either of the dwellings hereby approved, the access and crossing of the
highway verge and/or footway shall be widened and constructed in accordance
with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to development
commencing on site. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The development shall
not be brought into use until a maximum of four parking spaces including
garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all
of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate
off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Provision of turning area -
K40 |
|
7 |
Prior to occupation of
the development hereby approved, the level of the land highlighted yellow on
the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be
lowered and the existing highway footway shall be widened in accordance with
a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. The resultant visibility
splays shall be subsequently kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Before the development
commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard
surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to
be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include
provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of
planting. Reason: To
ensure that the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The landscaping scheme
shall be completed within six months from the completion of the last building
shell, or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or plants which
die during the first five years shall be replaced during the next planting
season. Reason: To ensure that the
landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the appearance of the
development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials
and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings
are occupied. Development shall be
carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of
maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order),
no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A and E of
the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site
without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
Notwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or
without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly
authorised by this permission) shall be constructed unless otherwise approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of
the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
Before the balcony to
the house on Plot 2 is brought into use, a solid/opaque screen to a minimum
height of 1.8 metres shall be erected on the north eastern perimeter and
shall be retained thereafter, in accordance with details to be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on
site. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and
amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
The first floor window
in the north east elevation of the dwelling on of Plot 2 shall at all times
be fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities of the adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
No development shall take
place until a specification of the proposed driveway, parking and turning
area including levels, method of construction and surface has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and
thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the
protection of the trees to be retained in the interest of the amenities of
the area and to comply with policies D1 and C12 of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
16 |
No development
including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, shrubs
and other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning
Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed
barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. Any fencing shall conform
to the following specification: 1.2m minimum height
chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum
above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m
minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or
other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to
disturbance to the retained tree.
Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of
the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall
apply: (a) No placement or
storage of material; (b) No placement or
storage of fuels or chemicals. (c) No placement or
storage of excavated soil. (d) No lighting of
bonfires. (e) No physical damage
to bark or branches. (f) No changes to
natural ground drainage in the area. (g) No changes in
ground levels. (h) No digging of
trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i) Any trenches required
in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left
undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees,
shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected
from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in
the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting
Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
17 |
The existing trees,
shrubs and hedgerows on the southern boundary between the application site
and Harewood Lodge shall be retained and maintained and, where necessary,
reinforced with further planting, the details of which shall accord with a
scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the
amenities of the area in general and the setting of the adjoining Listed
Building in particular and to comply with policies D1 and B2 of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
18 |
All material excavated
as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of
services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the
area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from site prior to the
construction of the dwellings proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to
comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3. |
TCP/18055/N P/01269/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard
Ward: Gurnard Registration Date: 21/07/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Applicant: Mr P Finn Demolition of dwelling;
construction of detached house Hillis Farm, Rolls Hill Road,
Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318ND |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This proposal raises design issues
that warrant consideration by the Committee.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
The processing of this minor
application has taken twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed
eight week period for determination of applications due to ongoing negotiations
and the need for Committee consideration.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This application relates to Hillis Farm
which is situated on the north western side of Rolls Hill Road, Gurnard,
approximately 250 metres south west of Hillis Corner. The site is approximately five acres in area and, until recently,
comprised of a farmhouse and a group of redundant outbuildings. Most of the outbuildings have been removed
and the farmhouse itself partially demolished.
The farmhouse has a Georgian appearance and, although having character,
does lack architectural merit.
Land slopes away in a north westerly
direction with the existing farmhouse situated on the highest part of the
site. The immediate area is rural in
character comprising of undulating fields with scattered agricultural buildings
and residential properties. The
existing house stands alone and does not relate visually to nearby
dwellings. The nearest dwellings are
situated to the east and comprise of bungalows and cottages.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Consent to convert buildings to
three units of accommodation was granted in March 1987 following a Committee
site visit, but following consent, some of the buildings were storm damaged and
subsequently demolished. Various later
applications for conversion of the buildings were refused and following an
appeal, an Inspector's decision in 1990 allowed permission for conversion of
remaining redundant farm buildings to form two semi-detached dwellings together
with garaging for three vehicles.
Consent was subsequently renewed in February 1995. A further application for renewal of this
consent was withdrawn in 2001.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent is sought to replace the
existing four bedroom farmhouse with a modern five bedroom single/two storey
dwelling. The proposed dwelling is
shown to be sited a further twenty metres into the site where it would be one
metre lower than the existing dwelling.
The height of the proposal is also 0.9 metre less than the existing
building giving an overall reduction in height of just under two metres.
Revised plans have been submitted
showing a reduction in overall scale and mass of the proposed building. The original scheme would have enlarged the
original dwelling by some 55%. The
revised proposal involves an increase in volume of the existing by just under 25%.
The building would be constructed
mainly of stone coloured render, oak boarding, satin finished silver metal work
and could be situated upon a stone plinth.
There would be a strong emphasis on the use of clear glazing,
particularly the living room which is irregular in shape, glazed on all sides
and positioned under a square single storey canopy. The entire building would be under a flat roof disguised by a
well defined parapet wall.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant national policies are
covered in PPG1 (Revised) - General Policies and Principles. This places
emphasis on the importance of design:
"30. The appearance, proposed development and its
relationship to its surroundings are therefore material considerations in
determining planning applications and appeals ......"
The document goes on to advise that
applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken into account good
design in their development proposals paying regard to development
plan/policies and supplementary design guidance. Significantly, paragraph 17 advises that Local Planning
Authorities should reject poor designs and continues:
"..... poor design
may include those inappropriate to their context or those clearly out of scale
or incompatible with their surroundings."
With regard to the design issue, the
document advises that Local Planning Authorities should not attempt to impose a
particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should not concern
themselves with matters of detail except where they may have a significant
effect on the character or quality of the area including neighbouring
buildings.
The application site is shown as
being outside of the development envelope.
The following policies are considered to be relevant:
S1 - New
development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.
S4 - The
countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
S6 - All
development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G2 -
Consolidation and Infilling of Scattered Settlements Outside Development
Envelopes.
G5 -
Development Outside Defined Settlements.
D1 -
Standards of Design.
H9 -
Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer was concerned with
the proposal to reposition the vehicular access. It has subsequently been resolved following discussions with
applicant's agent to retain the existing access and Highway Engineer recommends
conditions in this respect.
The Architects Panel have considered
this application and commented in detail.
The Panel concluded that this was potentially an exciting scheme but
were disappointed that the presentation did not allow detailed consideration of
the proposals and that further information would be needed for this scheme to
fulfill its potential. In particular,
it was felt that details of the proposed outbuilding and landscaping proposals
should be submitted so that the development could be judged on a comprehensive
basis. The Panel confirm that the
overall design of the building was considered appropriate for the site.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Gurnard Parish Council object on
grounds that the proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding
buildings in the area. The Parish
Council feel that the replacement dwelling should be of a similar design and
construction to the original and of complementary materials.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
The Isle of Wight Society object on
grounds that the design and materials for this development will not blend
harmoniously with this rural location.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Essentially, this application seeks
permission to demolish an existing dwelling located in an area of countryside
and replace it with a new one. If this
site were undeveloped, the provision of a new dwelling in this location would
be contrary to Development Plan policy.
The mitigating factor in this instance is the existence of Policy H9
which states:-
"Planning
applications for residential development outside the development boundaries of
defined settlements will only be permitted if they are for:
(a) A
replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling".
There are other caveats to Policy H9
relating to agricultural dwellings, conversion of rural buildings, tourism
uses, locally affordable housing schemes or infill but none of these
apply. This policy also needs to be
considered in conjunction with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) which
effectively requires new development to enhance the quality and character of the
built environment in the following terms:
·
Respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the
surrounding area.
·
Be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing.
·
Should be of a height, mass and density compatible with surrounding
buildings and uses.
The determining factors in this
instance therefore relate to the scale and mass of the proposed dwelling in
relation to the existing building, and whether the modern design proposed is
appropriate for this rural location.
The difference in scale and mass
between the existing and proposed can be assessed in two ways. Firstly, a numerical comparison and
secondly, a visual appreciation of how the two dwellings would differ. In respect of the former, this development
would have a volume of just under 25% greater than the original dwelling, which
is a substantial reduction on the scheme as originally submitted. While this may still sound a considerable
increase, I am of the opinion that the actual increase would not appear
significant because of the manner in which the proposed dwelling has been
broken down into its separate elements coupled with the overall reduction in
height.
In terms of the appearance of the
building, the "safe" option would be to design a dwelling which
reflects the rural vernacular. The
agent has taken a more radical approach seeking consent for a modern and
innovative design which he considers will compliment the surrounding rural
landscape. The following has been
extracted from his design statement:
" The house is uncompromisingly modern in
its appearance but is I feel clearly routed in a traditional approach to the
placing of buildings in a landscape.
The external materials of polished oak boarding and window surrounds,
pale yellow cement render, satin finished silver metal work, clear glazing and
stone plinths will give the building a warm and inviting appearance. The materials will reflect in some respect
the simplicity of traditions in farm buildings. Its forms will also contrast well with the gentle contour of the
surrounding countryside."
I have referred to the national
policies with regard to design contained in PPG1 and again Members may consider
carefully the following statement from that document:
"Design policies and
guidance should focus on encouraging good design and should avoid stifling
responsible innovation, originality or initiative....."
There can be no doubt that this is a
modern design that would be noticeable from the public highway. It would, however, be set well into the
surrounding landscape, probably more so than the existing because of the lower
level on which it would be situated.
The agent has prepared several computer generated images showing that
the proposed dwelling would be well articulated in order to offer shape and
character. Furthermore, the strong use
of glazing would offer a certain degree of transparency that would go some way
in reducing the overall impact of this development. The use of other materials such as stone coloured smooth render
and oak boarding would give this modern design a traditional feel. Taking these points into consideration
coupled with the stand-alone nature of the site, I am firmly of the opinion
that the proposal would be well integrated into the surrounding landscape and
would not be detrimental to the sporadic nature of development in this rural
area.
In response to the comments made by
the Architects Panel, the agent has now provided more detailed drawings in
addition to the samples board and computer images already submitted. I am therefore satisfied that this
application is accompanied by sufficient information in order to fully assess
the proposal.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the right set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the right 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 outlined in this report, I am
satisfied that the proposal is similar in both scale and mass to the existing
and therefore accords with Policy H9. I
am also of the opinion that the stand-alone nature of the site lends itself to
the individual and innovative design proposed and that the development will not
detract from the landscape character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION
-
APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
Detail external roofing/facing
finishing - S02 |
|
3 |
Before the development
commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard
surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to
be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include
provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of
planting. Reason: To
ensure that the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to
comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The landscaping scheme
shall be completed within six months from the substantial completion of the
dwelling, or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority. Any trees or
plants which die during the first five years shall be replaced during the
next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the
landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the appearance of the
development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Withdraw PD rights
structures/fences etc - R01 |
|
6 |
Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc -
R02 |
|
7 |
The access and crossing
of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with
the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the
development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction
(strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class
C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with
float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed
development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Provision of turning area -
K40 |
|
9 |
The development shall
not be brought into use until a maximum of 3 parking spaces including garages
have been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of
those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate
off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
Prior to commencement
of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall
be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over
the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater
than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
11 |
The existing access to
the site marked A on the attached plan to and forming part of this decision
notice shall be stopped up and abandoned and any footway/verge crossings
shall be reinstated on completion of the new access. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4. |
TCP/24820/B P/00548/03 Parish/Name: Wootton
Ward: Wootton Registration Date: 20/03/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Applicant: J Siddy Esq Change of use of 1st floor from
ancillary accommodation for chemists to self-contained flat; single storey rear extension to provide
enlarged chemists with terrace over;
external staircase on side elevation;
vehicular access & parking, (revised scheme) 43 High Street, Wootton Bridge,
Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334LU |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report requested by Ward Member
Councillor Abraham. The request was
made after application submitted if the Officer recommendation is refusal. The reason for this request is:
1.
Local Member does not agree with recommendation.
2.
Proposal will improve highway safety.
3.
Create disabled access for shop.
4.
Will bring property in line with other properties in location.
Application deferred at Committee
meeting on 12 August 2003 to allow further comments to be received from
Highways including Car Parks Section and Property Services Manager.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken
twenty weeks (now thirty weeks).
The delay has been due to awaiting further information from the Agent
which has still not been submitted and Local Member requesting further
consultation with Highways Department.
Further delay as a result of Committee deferring application.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The property is semi-detached with
Chemists at ground floor and ancillary accommodation at first. There is lay-by parking immediately outside
the front of the premises and public car park to the rear with no existing
parking within the application site.
This is a mixed commercial/residential area, the chemists business
within Wootton High Street serving local need.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/24820 - Change of use of first
floor from ancillary accommodation for chemist to self contained flat; single
storey rear extension to provide enlarged chemists with terrace over; external
staircase on side elevation; vehicular access and parking. Refused July 2002.
TCP/24820/A - Change of use of first
floor from ancillary accommodation for chemists to self contained flat; single
storey rear extension to provide enlarged chemists with terrace over; external
staircase on side elevation (revised scheme).
Conditional approval October 2002.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The proposal for use of the first
floor as self contained flat involves construction of an external staircase on
the east elevation; the accommodation will consist of lounge, bedroom,
bathroom, kitchen and terrace. An attic
store and small bedroom is proposed at second floor. The second part of the proposal is for a single storey rear
extension to enlarge the chemists projecting 8.6 metres from the rear wall,
5.565 metres in width, designed to match in with the
existing building. The third element to the application is the
provision of two car parking spaces in the rear garden of the premises which
will be accessed off the Brannon Way public car park.
Details to show the loss of car
parking space in the car park and the correct certification service was
requested from the Agent on 23 May 2003 but has not been received at the time
of report writing.
Correct certificate now served.
Letter of 1 August 2003 and plan
from agent includes land on public car park which currently comprises two
public car parking spaces, and also highlights existing access/unloading to
properties from public car park. Agent
requests that it would appear other business premises have access across car
park into rear of premises and any refusal would place existing chemists
business at disadvantage. Agent
requests consistent approach in dealing with applications of this nature.
Letter from agent dated 16 September
2003 stating Property Services Department have received a formal request for
vehicular access over the car park.
Agent confirms the real need for this access is to ease the burden on
the front lay-bys for deliveries to the shop.
It would not concern client if parking for the flat were not given. Client is concerned regarding deliveries to
shop premises; on numerous occasions these delivery vehicles have been unable
to use the front lay-by to the High Street and therefore caused chaos to the
traffic flow on the main road “blocking in” parked vehicles in the lay-by.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The application is sited within the
development envelope for Wootton.
Wootton has no defined town centre or retail boundary. Policies G1 - Development Envelopes for
Towns and Villages, G10 - Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and
Existing Surrounding Uses, D1 - Standards of Design, and TR16 - Parking
Policies and Guidelines are considered relevant.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends refusal;
Highways Department have an immediate presumption against any application for the
creation of a new right of way onto a public car park. The grounds for refusal are loss of three
public parking spaces to provide two private, creation of right of way across
public car park and loss of control of any future development of the car park.
Property Services have no comment as
Car Parks Section are client and no further comment following receipt of
agent's letter of 16 September 2003.
Memorandum of 27 August 2003 from
Property Services attached as Appendix A.
Council's Car Parks Manager confirms
that Council would not grant permission for this access which would result in
the loss of three public parking spaces.
Memorandum of 4 September 2003
attached as Appendix B from Car Parks Manager.
Traffic and Transportation Manager’s
comments attached as Appendix C.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Parish Council raise no objection
and have copied a letter sent to Property Services Section which summarised
confirms local chemist is important contributor to village life and that
improvement works, plus a rear vehicle access to the business is of great
importance, so much so that without it the existence of the chemist in the
village could be at stake. Parish
Members feel that an exception in this case should be made because of the
importance of the chemist to the village and advantages a rear access from
Brannon Way car park would provide.
Although parking spaces would be lost in the car park, the situation
with regard to loading and unloading by the chemist delivery vehicles in the
lay-by outside the chemist would be lessened.
Delivery could be made easily and safely at the rear access resulting in
improved road safety at the lay-by in the High Street as well as freeing the
lay-by for valued car parking space for shoppers. Loss of three parking spaces to provide rear access to the
chemist is a small price to pay for its guaranteed future.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
None received.
CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder implications
anticipated.
EVALUATION
The site is within the development
envelope for Wootton within a small parade of businesses and a mixed
commercial/residential area. Main
planning considerations relate to impact on amenities of surrounding
residential occupiers and locality in general, whether design of alterations
are in keeping with original property and Highway policy considerations.
In assessing Local Member and Parish
Council comments, it is accepted that the chemist is an important asset to the
local community. Given the proximity of
the premises to the lay-by in Wootton High Street and the available public car
park to the rear, the main consideration is whether the benefits of providing
two private spaces for the application site outweighs the wider considerations
of loss of public car parking space.
This site is on a major bus route with lay-by and public parking in very
close proximity and the proposals therefore conflict with parking policies and
guidelines within the Unitary Development Plan.
If Members were minded to approve
this application, it is also relevant that from the consultations carried out
it would not be practical to implement as the Council as landowner would not
permit private access off the public car park.
With regard the design and siting of
the extension; this is a large footprint but when viewed against extensions in
the immediate locality it is considered acceptable and presenting minimal
impact as well as supporting the operation of the chemist. The residential accommodation at first
floor, the new external staircase and terrace are acceptable in terms of design
and siting, the terrace presenting minimum impact in terms of affect on
neighbouring privacy. Members should be
aware that a similar scheme without the vehicular access and parking was
approved in October 2002 which could still be implemented and it is not
considered there are any sustainable reasons to refuse the extension and
alterations element of the application.
It is only the parking that is contentious.
In summary the Highway Engineer's
recommendation carries substantial weight on policy grounds and the proposal
would prejudice the future potential development of the car park. Local Member and Parish Council concern does
not outweigh policy considerations and application needs to be assessed on
current policy standards.
Members deferred this application at
the meeting held on 12 August 2003 to allow further comments to be received
from Highways, including Car Parks Section and Property Services Manager. Members requested clarification concerning
the existing access points rear of properties fronting the High Street and the
basis on which these access arrangements were approved. Further clarifying statements were required
in respect of Council’s general approach in dealing with applications seeking
consent for access through public car parks.
The comments of the Property Services manager explains background to
previous Council decisions for easements/accesses.
Overriding issue is parking policy
and guidelines within Unitary Development Plan. Policy TR16 seeks to reduce car parking requirements to an
operational minimum and takes account of proximity to public off-street
parking. Whether for private or
business use does not alter the Highways recommendation.
No change to recommendation.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out
in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant
to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the
recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s
Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and appropriate
weight to all material considerations the proposal in respect of the vehicular
access and parking and loss of public parking is considered to conflict with
Parking Policies and Guidelines, prejudices the future potential development of
the Brannon Way car park and raises concerns in respect of precedence.
RECOMMENDATION
- REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The proposed access and
two private parking spaces would result in the loss of three public parking
spaces and have an adverse affect on the use and management of Brannon Way
public car park. Therefore, the
provision and use of private parking spaces at this location is considered to
be contrary to policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
2 |
The proposal is likely
to prejudice any future comprehensive redevelopment of the public car park
and therefore conflicts with the intention of PPG3 Housing and PPG13
Transport and is therefore contrary to policy S11 (Land Use Policies and
Proposals to Reduce the Impact of and Reliance on the Private Car) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The proposal would
create an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the
Local Planning Authority to resist further similar proposals, the cumulative
effect of which would create an adverse impact on the character of the area
and management of the public car park.
The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D1 (Standards of Design)
and policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5. |
TCP/25521 P/00644/03 Parish/Name: Newport
Ward: Osborne Registration Date: 09/04/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Island Harbour Limited Terrace of 7 houses to be used for
holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (readvertised
application) land north of, Redshank Way,
Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
A relatively straightforward
application that has attracted a large amount of objection.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This application has taken six
months to process due to the clarification sought from statutory consultees,
level of casework of the Officer and the restructuring of the Development
Control Section.
LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site is currently being developed
with drains etc. being laid. Site
appears to be spoil from adjoining development to the south which has been
built out (41 units of 96). To the west
is the attractive waterscape of the marina which becomes informal in its
setting as the views move further northwards.
To the east is open farmland that slopes up from the site. The site is linked to the existing
development to the south by private roadways and paths. Overall the area has a pleasant feel and a
clear association with the water.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/14525S - 96 yachtsmen holiday
cottages and flats, 96 marina berths and 128 parking spaces - approved 18
November 1988. Section 52 Agreement (31
October 1988) restricting amongst others the use to forty two weeks per year
and a requirement to keep a boat.
Since that date applications have
been made to vary the restrictions but they have been unsuccessful with Members
reaffirming their position in January 2001.
An amendment to the above scheme was
agreed on 30 January 2001 which changed elevational details and slight revised
siting on plots 37 to 43 and 29 to 36 and the rearrangement of a pontoon.
A further amendment to the original
scheme was rejected as an amendment as it required a planning application. This proposal is the subject of this report
which has now been submitted as a planning application.
Separate enforcement investigations
have been authorised for the existing site.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Proposal seeks to amend approved
scheme (TCP/14525S). The seven units
remain on the same footprint. Terrace
split in height at 2 units, 2 units and 3 units. Oriel type bays at ground floor and canopies to main entrance
door. Brick construction with slate
roofs. Some tile hanging. Two storey with accommodation in roof giving
three storeys but reading generally as two.
Dormer details not clear but are sited on both front and back
elevations. Access by paths, car
parking off site.
Moorings are shown to the end of an
existing finger pontoon.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is shown outside a
designated development envelope but within the policy area T6 (Permanent
Holiday Accommodation).
"Planning
applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as
defined on the proposals map, will be approved where the following criteria can
be met:
(a) they adjoin or are directly related to
the existing built facilities;
(b) they do not detract from the surroundings;
(c) they enhance the environment, or improve
the visual appearance of the site;
(d) new or replacement units
are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site
does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."
D1 - Standards of Design
TR7 - Highway
Considerations for New Developments
TR7 Zone 4 - Car Park (0
to 100% requirement)
C11 - Sites of Local
Importance for Nature Conservation
G7 - Development on
Unstable Land
G6 - Development in Areas
Liable to Flooding
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer advises
that there are no highway implications within this development.
English Nature advise
that the application will not have a significant effect (as described under
Regulation 48 (3) of the Conservation (Habitats C) Regulations 1994) on the
nearby international sites.
Council's Ecology Officer
comments that "the site lies close to a Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation C200. A part of the SINC is vulnerable to increased dredging and
pontoons within Island Harbour but I have no comments to make at this stage in
relation to the current proposals".
The Environment Agency
has no objection but recommends that a condition to flood defence maintenance
be placed on the development and to advise the applicants that the river Medina
is a statutory main river and works within 8 metres of the top of the bank
require their consent.
Southern Water comment
that a water supply can be provided for the proposed development as and when
required, and with regard to drainage they comment:
"This application
appears to be only a substitution of house types which would not increase the
load on the sewers. The plan indicates
an ' existing treatment plant' on the site.
I believe this refers to an adopted pumping station originally
constructed to serve the Island Harbour development. Capacity for the complete development should have been allowed
for in the design of the pumping station.
In 'Sewers for Adoption - 5th Edition' it is recommended that no
habitable buildings are located within 15 metres of a pumping station to
minimise the risk of odour, noise and nuisance. We interpret this distance as from the perimeter fence. Some of the other buildings shown on the
development plan do not comply with this recommendation. I have no record of any sewerage incidents
in this area possibly because only the pumping station and associated rising
main are the responsibility of Southern Water."
The Council's
Contaminated Land Officer comments:
"I have recently
reviewed your application for a terrace of seven houses for which I understand
outline consent has already been granted some fifteen years ago. I visited the site and observed several
thousands of tons of 'earth' on the site of 'Phase 2' of the Island Harbour
development. I am concerned that this
material might not be sufficiently 'clean' to be used in a residential
development with gardens. I would
therefore like to see some soil samples analysed for the ICRCL suite of
contaminants and for the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and sent to this
department to verify the suitability of the material to be used. It would also be helpful to tell us the
source(s) of the material that has been deposited there. I enclose a list of laboratories for your
convenience."
He later confirms,
following the receipt of a contamination report, that the land is suitable for
residential development.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
There has been a large
number of representations on this application (some of which are from the same
author) and Members are reminded that the full contents can be viewed at my
office.
There has been 34 letters
of representation, 10 of which are from the Island Harbour Residents Society
Ltd and 6 from one resident.
Letters of
objection/comments were concerned with:
1.
Ownership and applicant
2.
Base plans incorrect
3.
Advertisement brochure being incorrect
4.
Trees to be planted are not shown
5.
Scheme moving away from original consent
6.
Violations of rights of original Section 52 Agreement holders and need
to consult to any change to Section 52 Agreement
7.
Problems with existing drains on site
8.
Consequences of new berth spaces
9.
Concern with pylon
10. Description of changes
was given
11. Buildings at different
levels
12. Need to dredge the marina
13. Concern with the level of
use of Mill Lane since the first 29 houses were built.
14. Construction traffic and
effect on Mill Lane
15. Houses are larger
creating more rubbish and parking
16. Gabion wall removes
potential for slipway
17. Levelling of ground
18. Health and safety issues
19. 42 week restriction must
continue
20. Application may prejudice
comprehensive redevelopment of the area
21. Depth of marina is too
shallow
22. Removal of hip roof
23. Need for additional car
parking spaces
24. Ground stability problem
on reclaimed land
25. Filling in the marina
with soil
26. Estuary is valuable wild
life habitat
27. Reduction of light and
view
28. Safety of existing boats
29. Hours of operation
30. History of planning
approvals directs this development should be refused
31. Brick samples
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
After some toing and
froing and the receipt of correct plans the application seeks to amend the
original scheme for 96 units (TCP/14525S) in two ways - change of seven
terraced houses design and a change in the siting of the associated moorings.
During negotiation the
scheme proposed will be for holiday accommodation as opposed to the 42 week
restriction that currently exists. (For
information the 42 week occupation is not linked to a holiday use).
In essence units
themselves have been agreed previously as an amendment to the approved
scheme. However, the addition of
dormers will effectively make an amendment on an amendment which took the
proposal away from the original permission to a degree that a separate planning
application was required.
Seven units pick up the
overall theme of the existing 41 units being of a similar scale and mass and
keeping to the original footprint. The
roofs sit as a large addition given a suppressed feel to the accommodation
below. Typical of fisherman type
cottages. The dormers on each roof
oppose this concept being a little large, but overall sitting comfortably. Tile hanging bricks and slate add an
acceptable variety without becoming too fussy.
In determining application
of this nature the starting point is whether or not in principle the
development complies with policy.
Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) allocates the site for such
a use. In fact it follows close to the
original permission that is still extant.
That is the remaining 55 units could be built today without recourse to
the Local Planning Authority.
I believe that the
design, although moving away from the original concept, is acceptable. The development may be a catalyst for
completing a scheme that needs to be completed.
The Environment Agency
picks up the concern regarding the possible flooding in 2060 if existing
defences are not maintained. By an
appropriate condition require maintenance then the requirement of policy G6
(Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) can be safeguarded.
On site there appears to
have been some self seeding and colonisation by plants. If permission is forthcoming then these can
be covered by landscaping condition.
Land stability appears to
be superficial in that the concerns relate to fill rather than the whole area
moving. I anticipate that this will be
a Building Control matter. The edge of
the land will be distinguished by a gabion wall rather than sheet piling. This will safeguard the nature conservation
interests of the nearby European designated sites (lack of noise) as well as
the adjoining SINC. The Ecology Officer
has no further comment to make on the effect of this development on those
interests. If the overall development
progresses northwards then I believe the impacts of the SINC may be greater.
The overall development
to the south has worked well and that the majority of car parking is off site
(away from housing) with a narrow road restricting this I feel that this
concept shall continue. The area is in
Zone 4 parking considering there is a requirement of 0 to 100% parking. Holiday makers are unlikely to have more
than one car so an additional seven spaces in the existing car park will help
to avoid cars cluttering the road network.
The original scheme for
96 units received confirmation from the Highways Department that the private
road network was acceptable for the full development. They make no further comment on this application.
Part of the original
concept of the scheme was to make this area a holiday area for sailors of
yachts/boats and accordingly a restriction was put upon the permission
requiring that the mooring space should be provided for each holiday unit. Making a mooring space available per unit
will carry this concept forward.
A contamination report
has been sought from the Agents and it has recently been confirmed by the
Council's Contaminated Land Officer that the area is acceptable for residential
development.
Brick samples have been
submitted and appear of good quality and akin to other bricks used within the
former development.
Since the completion of
the original Section 52 Agreement Government advice is to restrict use by
conditions rather than legal agreement.
In this instance the holiday restriction and moorings do not need to be
covered by legal agreement (Section 106).
Although the development
ties in with the original development it does not prejudice its further
implementation I believe it can stand alone and be granted planning permission
in its own right.
Drainage matters are best
dealt with at Building Control stage.
Southern Water confirm the sewage capacity for the pumping station. Buildings are not set away from the pumps.
There are, as previous,
no restrictions on the size of boat to be used and therefore at this stage
capital dredging of the marina is not anticipated. MAFF licences may be required if dredging occurs.
It remains my opinion
that any third party rights such as easements, agreements and covenants that
are made between the interested parties are not overridden or removed by this
planning application which is concerned with land use.
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 and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, I am satisfied that this development will not have a significant impact
on the area affecting the visual and residential amenity. The nature conservation interests are safe
guarded by condition and the proposal calls for policies containing the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The accommodation
provided in the development hereby approved shall be used for holiday
purposes only. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for
holiday purposes and to comply with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday
Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
A plan shall be
submitted showing seven allocated mooring berths before the seven units
hereby approved are first occupied.
These mooring berths shall be provided on a pro rata basis before each
unit is occupied. Reason: To ensure that the development
retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday
Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The allocated space
pursuant to condition 3 shall be for the sole use of the occupants of the
holiday units hereby approved when the units hereby approved are in
occupation. Reason: To ensure that the development
retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday
Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
A new area of land
adjoining and abutting the existing car park shall be constructed in similar
materials and provided for an additional seven spaces before the units hereby
approved are first occupied. Reason: To ensure that adequate car
parking spaces are provided without the need to park on the private roads and
to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Details of a scheme of
maintenance for existing flood defences shall be submitted for approval to
the Local Planning Authority before the last unit hereby approved is
occupied. Such a scheme shall be
implemented within one year of the last unit being occupied. Reason: To ensure that the land term
protection against flooding is protected and to comply with Policy G6
(Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
Details of the storage
of refuse shall be submitted prior to first occupation for written approval
by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
No development shall
take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of
the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
Details of the dormer
window finishes shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning
Authority before the development has begun.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. Reason: To safeguard the
amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with
Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
10 |
No development shall
take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or
contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and
pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor
artefacts and structures (eg.
furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs,
lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below
ground (eg. drainage power,
communications cables, pipelines etc.
indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape
features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the
appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3
(Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
No balcony or other
raised external amenity area shall be used for the drying or airing of
clothes. Reason: To help ensure that the design of
the buildings are not compromised by unsightly additions and to comply with
Policy D7 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
12 |
The developer shall
afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological
Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features
of archaeological significance. Notification of the
opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on
site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days
before the commencement of any work: County Archaeological
Officer County Archaeological
Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure
access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to
comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
13 |
The development hereby
permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works
approved pursuant to condition 10 above have been completed in accordance
with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other
recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a
timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after
planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end
of the next planting season with others of species, size and number as
originally approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority
in writing. Reason: To ensure the
provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of
landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy
D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) TCP/3513/E Amended plans, chalet bungalow, garage and formation of vehicular access, land rear of 2, Hungerberry Close, Shanklin
To consider whether or not to accept amended plans
“as built” in respect of the above development following receipt of objection
as a result of consulting neighbouring properties.
In March 2003 consent was granted for a chalet
bungalow, garage and formation of vehicular access at land rear of 2,
Hungerberry Close, Shanklin. The
consent was subject to a number of conditions including permitted development
rights being withdrawn for windows unless the prior written consent of the
Local Planning Authority is obtained.
The dwelling has been constructed and is being fitted out. Three additional windows have been
installed.
The amended plan shows the insertion of two velux
roof lights measuring 940 by 730mm in the rear elevation. In addition the amendment request shows an
extra window at ground floor on the rear elevation which has been obscure
glazed and serves a cloakroom.
Following receipt of the amended plans, consultation with neighbouring
properties was carried out and one letter of objection has been received. Objector is concerned that there are changes
that have not been passed by the Planning Committee and with retrospective
nature of amendment request. Objector
strongly resents being overlooked by the new windows.
An inspection of the new windows has
taken place and there is no overlooking from the velux windows. With regard the window at ground floor, it
is obscure glazed and serving a cloakroom and does not present any adverse
impact. The existing rear boundary
fence is approximately 1.65 metres high and the additional windows do not have
any direct impact on neighbouring amenity.
Members are advised as a separate
matter there is an application pending for change of use of land to private
garden at the front of this site (TCP/25823).
None.
1.
To accept the amended plans submitted as an amendment to the existing
permission.
2.
Not to accept the amended plans and require the submission of a fresh
planning application.
3.
Not to accept the amended plans and advise the agent to carry out the
development strictly in accordance with the planning permission.
The withdrawal of permitted development rights for
windows on the original planning approval was in the interest of the amenities
of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to ensure any new
windows are in keeping with the property and not presenting an adverse impact
on neighbouring property.
The objector’s concern regarding the
retrospective nature of the request for amendment is not justification to
refuse the amendment request. In terms
of objector’s concern that proposal presents overlooking it is considered that
the additional windows do not present an adverse impact on neighbouring
privacy. In conclusion and in
accordance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and PPG18 (Enforcing Planning
Control) I consider the new windows acceptable and recommend that the plans be
accepted.
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 and in the public interest.
To accept the submitted
plan as an amendment to the approved plan in accordance with condition 3 on the
existing planning permission, TCP/3513/E.
Head of Planning Services