PAPER B2
SCHEDULE
OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
TCP/8182/H Mr
and Mrs F Troisi against refusal of outline for a dwelling, land rear of The
Mount, Shanklin.
TCP/25352 Mr and
Mrs D Thomas against refusal for conservatory and single storey extension, at
14 Glendale Close, Wootton.
TCP/9254/M Mr and Mrs
Stapleton against refusal for demolition of garages; pair of semi-detached
houses with garages, land between 18a and 19 Castle Street, Ryde.
TCP/24024/B Mr
J Hobson against refusal for renewal of two shipping containers at Helens
Copse, off Gate Lane, Freshwater.
2. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
TCP/24977/A Abbeyfield
Isle of Wight Extra Care Society, against refusal of outline for a thirty
six-bed nursing home on land between Grassmere Avenue and Thornton Close,
Appley Road, Ryde. This appeal is to be
linked with the earlier appeal against the refusal of outline for a two storey
building comprising twelve elderly persons units and a twenty four bed nursing
home and associated facilities and both appeals will be dealt with at the
Hearing to take place on 6 January 2004.
TCP/3551/D Westridge
Estates against refusal for demolition of existing building and construction of
four detached houses and garages, alterations to vehicular access and provision
of parking and turning, at the Crab Shack, Duver Road, Seaview. Inquiry to take place on 24 and 25 March
2004.
TCP/3664/V Mr R Roberts
against refusal for demolition of garages and outbuildings and removal of
caravans and outline for ten dwellings at Mountfield Holiday Park, Norton
Green, Freshwater. Hearing to take
place on 30 March 2004.
3. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
(1)
TCP/12442/K Mr and Mrs I Beynon
against refusal for the removal of agricultural occupancy condition at
Greenfields, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 26 September 2002
Appeal Decision: Allowed - 8 September 2003
Main issue of the case as identified
by the Inspector:
·
Whether
there is sufficient evidence that there is no longer a need for the
agricultural occupancy condition.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
·
The
property has been offered on the market at a value that reflects the
agricultural occupancy restriction.
·
Expressions
of interest were followed up with due diligence.
·
Bearing
in mind the restricted policies, which protect the rural character of the
Island, occupancy conditions should not be set aside lightly.
·
The
balance of evidence demonstrates that despite the marketing campaign over a
two-year period there is currently no one who is ready, willing and able to buy
the dwelling.
...................................................................................................................................................
(b) TCP/24646/A Greenfield Homes Construction Ltd against
refusal for two pairs of semi-detached houses with parking area on land to the
rear of 23 Marlborough Road and south of Appley Farm Development, Marlborough
Road, Ryde.
Officer
Recommendation: Refusal
Committee
Decision: Refusal
(Part 1) - 3 October 2002
Appeal
Decision: Dismissed
- 9 September 2003
Main
issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
·
The effect of the proposed development on highway safety and
the free flow of traffic in Marlborough Road.
·
The effect of the proposed development on the living
conditions of nearby occupiers, with particular reference to noise and
disturbance.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
Visibility for drivers leaving the proposed development
would be poor in either direction.
·
There would be danger to pedestrians using the footpath and
to drivers and cyclists using the road.
·
The restricted width of the access would provide inadequate
manoeuvring space for vehicles entering the site and would pose a serious
danger to highway safety and free flow of traffic.
·
The use of the access for the seven dwellings does not
justify a further increase.
·
The close proximity of habitable rooms to the access would
result in reduced amenity because of additional noise and disturbance.
·
There would be a detrimental effect on the living conditions
of occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance.
...................................................................................................................................................
(1)
TCP/3551/D Westridge Estates
against refusal for demolition of existing building and the construction of
five detached houses with alterations to vehicular access and provision of
parking areas, at the Crab Shack, Duver Road, Seaview.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 21 August 2002
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 15 September 2003
Main issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector:
·
Whether
the proposed scheme would be sustainable given the provisions of the
Development Plan and the site’s position relative to Seaview and to the sea
defences currently under construction.
·
The
impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area and on
living conditions of nearby residents, particularly in relation to outlook.
·
Whether
the proposal makes reasonable provision for access by the disabled.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
·
The
site could arguably be described as infilling a small gap between existing
dwellings.
·
Notwithstanding,
the proposal does not require a rural location and would not benefit the rural
economy and does not have the support of UDP Policy G5.
·
The
site has a high risk of flooding and whilst the proposed houses would be built
on slabs, survey data suggests that access and the circulation areas could be
submerged.
·
Advice
in PPG25 is that general purpose housing should not be granted unless it could
be shown that there are no reasonable options available in lower risk flood
zones.
·
There was no evidence to demonstrate a shortage of sites in
lower risk categories.
·
The appeal proposal, at a density of less than twenty
dwellings per hectare, would be an inefficient use of the land when judged
against advice in PPG3.
·
The Crab Shack building has clearly reached the end of its
useful life but no evidence was produced to show attempts to market the site
for non-residential use and a robust case would be needed to overcome policy
objections to a residential scheme.
·
The proposed scheme would not be sustainable given the
provisions of the UDP, the site’s position relative to Seaview and the sea
defences currently under construction.
·
The proposed scheme respects the scale of the neighbouring
development.
·
The proposal would interfere with views from the first floor
window of Duver Gate but the siting of the nearest dwelling is such that it
would not dominate the outlook to an extent that warrants withholding consent.
·
The impact of the development on the character and
appearance of the area and living conditions of nearby residents would be
acceptable and would not conflict with the UDP.
·
The proposal makes adequate provision for access by the
disabled.
APPLICATION FOR COSTS AGAINST ISLE
OF WIGHT COUNCIL
Applicant’s
reasons for application:
·
The Council failed to provide evidence to substantiate its
reason for refusal which stated insufficient information had been submitted in
respect of flood risk despite a Flood Risk Assessment being submitted as
evidence to the Inquiry.
·
The Council did not call a flooding expert witness to the
Inquiry.
·
The Council did not explore with the Environment Agency the
level of risk or the issue of wave height even though the current Flood
Protection Scheme is part funded by the Council.
·
The Council asked questions in relation to places of safety
for the occupants of the development when it was clear the dwellings would
provide places of refuge.
Council’s
response:
·
On receipt of the appellant’s evidence, the Council gave
careful thought to the submitted information and decided there was still an
issue of flood risk.
·
There was considerable debate to the Inquiry and a clear
difference of opinion between witnesses.
·
Most of the Inspector’s questions were directed to the issue
of flood risk.
Conclusions
of the Inspector:
·
The Flood Risk Assessment had not been provided at the time
of the decision but the Council was entitled to conclude after receiving the
assessment that there was no reason to permit development in a flood risk area.
·
The Environment Agency’s satisfaction with the quality of
the assessment does not undermine the Council’s decision.
·
The Environment Agency is not responsible for land use
planning and their lack of objection to the later application (not the subject
of the current appeal) did not oblige the LPA to conclude the level of flood
risk is acceptable.
·
At the Inquiry the Council provided evidence to support
their concerns in relation to flood risk and were under no obligation to
produce a flood risk expert and did not behave unreasonably in this respect.
·
PPG25 points out it is the applicant’s responsibility to
assess flood risk and produce an assessment and it was therefore entirely
appropriate that their expert should attend the Inquiry to answer questions.
·
It was this expert’s evidence that raised the matter of wave
heights so it was not surprising the Council chose to question him.
·
It was not unreasonable for the Council to explore evidence
about the safety of occupants of the proposed development and about the
adequacy of arrangements for emergency access in the event of a flood.
Inspector’s
decision:
·
There was no demonstration of unreasonable behaviour by the
Council that caused unnecessary expense and the application for an award of
costs against the Council was refused.
...................................................................................................................................................
Copies of
the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the
Members Room. Further copies may be
obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment
Services