REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 14 NOVEMBER 2003
|
2. |
TCP/04537/C P/01658/03 Parish/Name: Newport Registration Date: 26/08/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983)
823598 Demolition of bungalow; residential development of
33 houses with parking & access road off Westminster Lane Bowdens Mead Lodge, Westminster Lane, Newport, Isle
Of Wight, PO305DP |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Application is a major
submission which raises important planning issues.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a major application
and will have taken ten weeks to determine.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application relates to a
detached property known as Bowdens Mead Lodge and its substantial curtilage
situated between the recent development known as Charnwood Close and that
element of Westminster Lane which runs in an east west direction. It is that element of Westminster Lane off
which access is to be achieved. The
north western boundary immediately abuts Newport C of E primary school.
The south eastern boundary
is in the form of a split boundary with part directly abutting Westminster Lane
where it runs in a north south direction with the remaining boundary set back
forming the rear boundaries of three pairs of recently constructed
semi-detached properties which form part of the overall Westminster
Lane/Charnwood Close development. The site is generally overgrown although has
been the recent subject of some site clearance and tree removal along the
Westminster Lane boundary. The site has
a general gradient from west to east and contains a number of intermittent
boundary hedges. The cul de sac
Charnwood Close directly abuts the northern boundary and serves a total of ten
dwellings, six terraced and four semi-detached properties, the frontage of
which face the application site.
Abutting the north western corner of the site is a substantial
greenfield site which extends through to Petticoat Lane and the current Persimmon
Home development.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None in respect of the
application site.
The adjoining Charnwood
Close/Westminster Lane development forms part of a larger development, most of
which was served off Westminster Lane and which was granted consent in November
1998 for two storey blocks of four flats and thirty six houses. This development is now complete and
occupied.
The substantial greenfield
site which abuts the north western corner is subject of an outline application
for residential development with all matters reserved and which was approved in
June 2003 subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement (planning
obligation) covering great crested newt translocation, provision of affordable
housing and provision of open space and its maintenance. At the time of preparing this report that
legal agreement has not been entered into and therefore no consent has been
issued. The application was also
subject of extensive number of suggested conditions.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Detailed consent sought for
a total of 33 two storey dwellings scheduled as follows:-
Terraced two bedroom -
20 no.
Terraced three bedroom -
8 no.
Semi-detached three bedroom -
4 no.
Detached two bedroom -
1 no.
Total 33
units
Terraced dwellings split
into two groups of five, two groups of three and one group of four
dwellings. Additionally there is an L
shaped block consisting of a total of eight terraced dwellings (4 three bed and
4 two bed).
Group of four terraced
dwellings sited on the north south Westminster Lane frontage between Charnwood
Close and No. 46 Westminster Lane being one of the three pairs of modern
residential dwellings constructed as part of the overall Westminster Lane
development. The single detached two
bedroomed unit to be sited between Westminster Lane and No. 56 being again one
of the recently constructed pair of houses fronting Westminster Lane. Remaining units to be in the form of a
courtyard scheme with a courtyard/cul de sac being serviced off Westminster
Lane. In terms of properties which
directly abut the rear boundary of the existing three pair of houses which
front Westminster Lane these are in the form of two groups of five terraced
houses and one group of three terraced houses.
Vehicular access is off
Westminster Lane (south western boundary) with the access point being virtually
opposite Westminster House. Internal
road layout in form of cul de sac/courtyard.
Hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted indicating the cul
de sac to be laid out in tarmac finish with surrounding path and parking areas
being laid out in the form of block paving with intermittent raised landscape
beds strategically placed. A total of
37 parking spaces have been indicated dispersed throughout the site all
relating to and surveyed from the dwellings to which they serve. The proposal also indicates metal railings
set approximately 2 metres to the front of the dwellings providing protectable
space in front of the dwelling.
Landscaping scheme also
indicates a landscape strip along the west east Westminster Lane boundary.
In terms of landscaping
proposal will result in the loss of some trees along the boundaries of the site
although landscaping scheme does indicate retention of prominent trees on the
junction of the two Westminster Lanes.
Arrangement and position of dwellings in the south western corner of the
site have been dictated by the position of two existing public sewers which
cross the site in this area and the need to retain a minimum easement distance
from those sewers.
Finally the proposal does
indicate the provision of 2 metre high close boarded fencing with trellis on
the western, northern and southern boundaries.
Application has been
accompanied by a general planning statement itemising the general difficulties
in respect of this site with the relevant paragraphs being quoted as follows:
"The provision of off site highway works for improvements to
Westminster Lane and the road junction will be in excess of £25,000; the cost
of the easement across Westminster Lane to the site is in the order of £39,000;
the cost of additional piling adjoining the foul sewer is about £21,000 (if the
houses are set further away from the sewer it will severely limit the number of
houses that can be build); the likely transport infrastructure costs of about
£750 per dwelling; and the sale of affordable housing units to a registered
social landlord at 50% discounted value.
The applicant is therefore requesting that these figures be taken into
account in reaching a figure for affordable housing units and it is prepared to
offer 5 units (15%) instead of the full 20% (6.6 units) in the Unitary
Development Plan. My clients are
already in negotiation with a Housing Association for the provision of the five
affordable units.
If permission could be given with only five affordable units, it is my
clients' intention to make an immediate start on the development. If agreement cannot be reached then the
economics of the scheme are in jeopardy and it is likely it will not
proceed."
Dwellings to be constructed
in fair faced brickwork with decorative brick features under mainly concrete
tiled roofs mainly in the form of gabled roofs.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
National policies covered
in PPG3 - Housing March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:
Meeting housing requirements for the whole community including those in
need of affordable housing.
Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in
size, type and location of housing.
Give priority to re-using previously developed land within urban areas
to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.
Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility
by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping, etc.
Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with
30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density
with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with
good public transport accessibility such as town centres etc.
More than 1.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect
government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.
Delivery of affordable housing and major material consideration in
respect of housing development.
Objective should be to ensure that affordable housing secured will
contribute to satisfying local housing need as demonstrated by a vigorous
assessment.
Reference is also made to
PPG13 - transport, the objectives of which are to:
Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for
moving freight.
Promote accessibility to job, shopping, leisure facilities, services by
public transport, walking and cycling.
Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.
Reference is also made to
PPG9 - nature conservation which provides comprehensive advice on the
relationship between planning control and nature conservation.
Local Plan/Policies
Site forms part of an
overall residential allocation within the Unitary Development Plan with
relevant policy statement being quoted as follows:
A number of sites totalling 7.28 hectares, some with buildings nearing
the end of their economic life were allocated for residential development. The employment uses on parts of the area are
either constrained by their sites or may not prove to be good neighbours to
recently introduced and proposed residential and educational uses in the
locality and could be beneficially located to allocated employment sites. The access shall be from the road linking
Sylvan Drive and Mountbatten Drive and shall allow for further access to the
east with a potential link to Hunnyhill.
Vehicular access shall not be from Westminster Lane and a link to Drill
Hall Road should be established.
Relevant local
plan/policies are as follows:
Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:
G1 - Development Envelope for Towns and Villages
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development
D1 - Standards of Design
D2 - Standards for Development within the Site
D3 - Landscaping
H3 - Allocation of Residential Development Sites
H6 - High Density Residential Development
H14 - Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of a Housing Scheme
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development
TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines
L10 - Open Space in Housing Developments
U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision
C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration
Reference is also made to
the recent housing needs survey, the main conclusions of which are as follows:
Demand for rented accommodation
Although there is a need in most Island settlements, the areas with most
need are Newport, Ryde, Shanklin/Lake/Sandown followed by Cowes
Large proportion is for single person accommodation although there
continues to be ongoing demand for two/three bedroom homes to meet statutory
homeless requirements.
Members will also be aware
of recent government statements which emphasises the need to deliver affordable
housing in the south east.
The site is located within
the parking zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum
of 0 to 50% parking provision for this site.
The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Also under Appendix G which covers this
policy the site's zonal location means that any development on this site in
excess of 10 units will be subject of transport infrastructure payments at the
rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to a sustainable transport fund and
therefore would make the application subject of a legal agreement covering this
issue. The aim of the fund is to
finance off site transport initiatives to help address the travel demands
generated by any proposal within zones 1 and 2.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer recommends
conditional approval covering submission of details in respect of estate roads,
visibility and sight lines, access, provision of turning space and parking
loading and unloading provision.
Council's Contaminated Land
Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application be approved.
Southern Water initially
expressed some concern regarding the adequacy of the sewer in Westminster Lane
to accept the additional discharge and welcomed the imposition of a condition
covering this issue. They acknowledge that
some capacity checks have been carried in respect of the sewer with those
checks being inconclusive.
Following further
investigation Southern Water now confirm the following:
Further analysis has been carried out to investigate the effect of
connecting the development foul water flow, estimated at 1.5 litres per second
into the public sewage system at manhole 3001 which is located in Westminster
Lane immediately outside the development site.
The model predicts that the proposed flow (foul water only) only can be
accommodated at this location.
Environment Agency,
following receipt of detailed calculations and additional information from the
applicant's drainage engineer, state the following:
There is no objection from the Agency to the details submitted.
Other issues and
information referred to in their letter are summarised as follows:
Lukely Brook is not designated as a main river and therefore prior
written land drainage consent for works will not be required.
Agency recommends that detailed investigation of capacity of any culvert
is undertaken to establish flood risk.
Any surface water design should include details of throttle type device
such as a hydrobrake to create the necessary storage.
Reference made to use of porous block paving in the car parking area as
being more sustainable way of dealing with surface water being the SUDS
(Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) system.
It is anticipated the underlying soils will be impermeable and therefore
Agency suggests that porous paving could still be employed in conjunction with
a sealed reservoir structure below.
Agency would be supportive of plans to reopen and maintain the capacity
of the ditch adjacent to Charnwood Close.
Any water course within the development should have ownership fully
resolved.
Upon completion of development riparian owners must be informed of their
rights and responsibilities regarding future maintenance and above all the
situation should be avoided where no-one admits to owning a water course with
subsequent maintenance problems.
Agency is aware of the adjacent proposed residential development. In terms of surface water drainage, however,
they state the following:
"In the instance of this site, although prior to any development in
the area it may have drained to the same sub-catchment as the aforementioned
development site adjacent to Charnwood Close, this may no longer be feasible
according to capacities of the water course and culverts that are currently in
place. The Agency would therefore
suggest that it should be treated as a separate system in this instance."
The above apart, the Environment Agency recommends appropriate condition
which to a great degree has been addressed by the applicant's drainage
engineer.
Council's Ecology Officer
has raised a number of issues relating to protected species with particular
reference to badgers and bats. Both
issues have been subject of investigation by the applicant and with regard to
the badger issue the Ecology Officer has confirmed the following:
Evidence of badgers on the site has been confirmed. Two sett entrances have been located close
to the access to the site off Westminster Lane. These are considered to be old and no longer in use. English Nature have been consulted. It is likely that provided further
investigation confirms that they are no longer active then they will be closed
down within the next six to eight weeks.
Therefore assuming this to be the case badgers will cease to be an issue
on this site.
With regard to the issue of
bats, the Ecology Officer has visited the site to investigate whether or not
the existing bungalow accommodates habitation by bats. It was confirmed that bat droppings were
located thus providing evidence that the building is used as a bat roost.
In view of the this the
applicant has taken on board advice and employed a consultant to prepare the
necessary report. The Council's Ecology
Officer confirms that "due to their protection under the habitats
directive, any development which will result in disturbance requires a derogation
from the provisions of the regulations.
This takes the form of a licence issued by DEFRA. Such a licence would need to satisfy the
following tests:
Derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of
the species at a favourable conservation status.
There is no satisfactory alternative.
The development is for imperative reasons of overriding public interest
including those of a social or economic nature.
The likely result of this
process is placing constraints on the timing of the demolition of the
bungalow. The second and third issues
are required to be considered by the Local Planning Authority in granting
consent.
Ecology Officer recognises
that this is a cumbersome process although ultimately licence applications are
successful provided that planning permission has been granted and it is
accepted that a developer may wish to develop the site before the bungalow can
be demolished under the terms of the DEFRA licence.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Application is subject of
four letters of objection. Three from
residents of Westminster Lane and one from a resident of Caesars Road. Points raised are summarised as follows:
1. Concern at the partial site clearance that has taken
place and its effect on wildlife habitat.
2. Any development of the site will result in loss of
considerable wildlife habitat which has existed on the site over many
years. Specific reference made to
existence of badgers and bats and considerable amount of bird life. Any development on this site will be at the
expense of that wildlife habitat.
3. Concern that existing local infrastructure with
particular reference to schools, doctors, dentists, etc will be able to
accommodate the additional pressures on those services caused by this
development.
4. Concern by one of the occupiers of the semi-detached
properties which front Westminster Lane that the dwellings proposed behind
those properties will create an overlooking and loss of privacy because those
dwellings will stand higher than the existing properties.
5. Concern that the development will adversely impact on
the integrity of existing boundary/retaining walls, both during construction
and upon completion.
6. One objector considers that access should be off
Charnwood Close and not off Westminster Lane and that the existing line of
trees along the Westminster Lane boundary should be retained to screen the
site. Objector makes reference to the
fact that Charnwood Close is an adopted highway whereas at the moment
Westminster Lane is effectively a private road.
7. Westminster Lane presently used by a number of
commercial vehicles, taxis and mobility vehicles and this proposal to access
the site off this lane will increase that level of traffic causing hazards to
road users.
8. One objector makes specific reference to the
inadequacies of the existing road system in the area and this proposal will
simply add to the problems of traffic movement with a potential for causing
blockages, creating difficulties for emergency vehicles.
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
Comments on this issue are
awaited.
EVALUATION
Principle
There is no objection to
the principle of development of this site, given that the site forms part of an
overall residential allocation in the Unitary Development Plan which in itself
went through a UDP procedure. Members
will appreciate the importance of deliverability and the need to achieve the
housing delivery figures over the Unitary Development Plan period. Applicants have therefore submitted a full
planning application to enable an early commencement on site assuming consent
is granted.
Layout/Density
The density of the proposal
is 55 units per hectare which reflects the number of terraced units with
particular reference to the predominance of two bedroomed dwellings. This mix of dwellings with particular
emphasis on two bedroomed units entirely accords with the identified needs as
indicated in the Council's Housing Needs Survey and this, along with the site's
location in relatively close proximity to the town centre, makes this level of
density entirely acceptable.
In pre-application
negotiations applicant was considering a development of 24 units which included
the retention of the existing bungalow.
The applicant was encouraged to consider a higher density in the
interests of making efficient use of land, given the brownfield nature of the
site. I therefore have no hesitation in
suggesting that this level of density is acceptable.
In terms of layout and
general arrangement of dwellings, applicant has indicated a semi cul de
sac/courtyard approach with all units facing onto the courtyard area. Again, the applicant has been encouraged to
create space which not only provides parking but also is laid out to create a
community space within which the motorist and pedestrian can function in
relative safety. The importance of this
area in contributing to the overall character of the development cannot be over
emphasised. Again applicant has been
encouraged to submit as part of the application the landscaping proposals as
opposed to dealing with these as a condition.
The soft and hard landscaping scheme clearly indicates introduction of
strategically placed landscape features along with changes in surface treatment
separating the vehicle and movement areas from the parking areas and pedestrian
routes. The parking has been indicated
to the front of the dwellings which effectively means that the dwellings do not
have any recognised front gardens but merely some protectable space enclosed by
metal railings. I consider that this
represents a suitable type of development in compliance with the
recommendations contained in "By Design Better Places to Live", a
companion guide to PPG3.
Applicant has also
carefully considered the entrance to the site off Westminster Lane with the
fencing being set off the back edge of carriageway to allow space for
appropriate planting to both visually enhance the appearance and provide
security.
Applicant has been
encouraged to vary the design of the units with particular reference to roof
shapes with ridges running both parallel with and directly facing the courtyard
area. This along with the introduction
of variation in finishes with various features will hopefully provide the
development with a sense of place.
Members will note that development is restricted entirely to two storey
which is compatible with the recent development in Westminster Lane. The layout itself, although of a reasonably
high density does provide a good level of private garden space which equates
favourably with the adjoining recent development in Westminster Lane and
Charnwood Close. This space provision
along with the type of layout of the courtyard leads me to the view that it
would be unreasonable to require the provision of a specific area of open space
to serve this relatively small development.
Access/Parking
It is my understanding that
this element of Westminster Lane is not an adopted highway although is in the
ownership of the Council. This proposal
to access the site off this lane will achieve two purposes. Firstly the works to be carried out provides
for an increase in the carriageway width to 4.8 metres and the resurfacing and
construction of the length of Westminster Lane with a bitumen macadam surface
on a base course. Effectively this will
result in this short length of Westminster Lane being brought up to an
adoptable standard.
Second benefit is that the
very fact that this work is to take place at a cost to the developer enables
the release of this land for development, albeit being accessed from a
different direction to that indicated on the policy statement for the overall
allocated land. Whilst appreciating
that this may put increased pressures on traffic using the adjoining road
system, this is a relatively modest development when linked to the overall
allocation and there is a need to ensure as far as possible that development
takes place in the short term in the interests of deliverability and this is
one method of achieving it.
Charnwood Close may have
offered a limited alternative, however that has been designed as a cul de sac
and is unlikely to ever be extended to serve other land and therefore it was
considered that the whole of this development should be served directly off
Westminster Lane with the scheme itself effectively turning its back on
Charnwood Close. No adverse comments
have been received from the Highway Engineer on this issue.
In terms of parking, as
already stated the site is within Zone 2 being 0 - 50% of guidelines. In this case 100% guideline for this site
would require 78 parking spaces. Therefore
the maximum which would be allowed under this policy would be 39 spaces. The application actually indicates a total
of 37 spaces and therefore is within the maximum figure. Second resultant factor of the site being
within Zone 2 is the requirement for a transport infrastructure payment which
in this case would be a total of £24,750 (33 x £750). Applicant is aware of this requirement which will be subject of a
legal agreement.
Provision of Affordable
Housing
Members will note that the
affordable housing provision does not meet the 20% requirement under policy
H14, however made reference to the extenuating circumstances which apply to
this site with particular reference to the various constraints and therefore it
is considered not unreasonable to reduce the actual requirement. The applicant could have pursued an
application for 24 units which still would have been within the density
parameters and would not have triggered the need for affordable housing at all. However, the applicant has co-operated by increasing
the density and therefore the range of dwellings and a lesser provision of
affordable housing is considered to be acceptable in this case. I can also confirm that a housing
association is being brought on board in respect of the 5 units to be provided
and have verbally confirmed their interest.
Again this provision will need to be the subject of a legal agreement.
Drainage
This is another issue which
has been the subject of extensive research and negotiation with the end result
being that Southern Water have finally confirmed that the existing combined
sewer within Westminster Lane has sufficient capacity to accommodate this
number of units. There had been some
concern regarding whether there was sufficient capacity and indeed at one time
Southern Water were concerned that there would be sufficient to accommodate the
foul drainage from 33 units without the need to upgrade the sewer over a
considerable length at a substantial cost to the developer. Further research has now been carried out
and Southern Water are now satisfied that the whole development can be
accommodated.
This would mean, however,
that the remaining sites which form part of the overall allocation would not be
able to discharge into this sewer without it being upgraded over a substantial
length in a north easterly direction.
This would clearly be a matter for those developers to address as and
when the sites come forward.
The whole of the above
assumes that no surface water drainage will drain into this pipe and would be
draining directly into Lukely Brook.
Again this has been the subject of some discussion including the
submission of detailed calculations by a drainage engineer. These calculations indicate that the surface
water will discharge into Lukely Brook via the existing
culvert at the north
eastern corner of the site. Also the
calculations indicate that the surface water sewers will need to be in the form
of oversized pipes to provide attenuation storage. In detail the conclusions of the report which have been accepted
in principle by the Environment Agency are as follows:
The development of the site will result in a significant increase in the
peak surface water run off from the site.
In order to eliminate the risk of this increase causing flooding or
exacerbating existing flooding elsewhere attenuation should be provided to
limit the peak flow to that from the undeveloped site.
The volume of storage required to attenuate the flow is 10 cubic
metres. This will ensure that the
redevelopment of the site will not cause a flooding problem elsewhere or
exacerbate an existing flooding problem.
The infilling of the existing ditch along the northern boundary of the
site appears to have impeded the natural flow from the west of the site. The gullies draining Charnwood Close now
discharge into the site rather than to the ditch. The ditch should be cleared over the length of the site to ensure
that the drainage from the west of the site and the carriageway of Charnwood
Close is not impeded.
With regard to the latter
issue above, Members will note the Environment Agency would prefer for the
ditch to be reformed and remain as an open ditch. However, the applicant's consulting engineer is suggesting that
the drainage path should be reinstated in the form of a pipe the same size as
that culvert which runs under Westminster Lane with a surround of permeable
material laid along the eastern boundary of the site. This would enable the existing gullies in Charnwood Close to
properly connect to this pipe which would represent a vast improvement on the
current situation which has these gullies simply draining into the site.
One of the reasons the
applicant is reluctant to provide an open water course or ditch is that it
presents a potential source of danger to small children particularly as such
features are attractive to children.
For safety reasons an open ditch would need to be enclosed by a
fence. This would seriously hamper
maintenance. It is important to
emphasise that the Environment Agency is expressing a preference for the open
ditch but do not appear to be insisting that this should occur. I consider this is an issue that can be
adequately covered by condition.
Finally with regard to the
suggestion by the Environment Agency that a soakaway system should be
introduced this has been addressed in the drainage engineer's report stating
that:
"The underlying soil is likely to be of low permeability and
therefore unsuitable for soakaway drainage systems particularly close to
buildings."
Ecology
Members will note the reference
to badger activity in the area contained within letters of objection. This has been the subject of some
investigation and the Council's Ecology Officer's comments referred to above
are self-explanatory. I am satisfied,
therefore, that this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.
In terms of effect of this
proposal on existing landscape features being mainly intermittent hedging and
trees along the boundaries, applicant's landscape architect has given this
careful consideration and a written report has been received.
All principal boundary trees and large hedgerows which have a
sustainable future will be retained.
All such trees should be protected and any tree surgery should be
carried out where necessary.
Unfortunately none of the trees can be described as being significant,
however efforts should be made to conserve those trees where they are able to
mature.
With regard to the elm
trees fronting Westminster Lane, the following points have been made:
All the existing trees are dead from base to canopy.
The extent of cover of what would appear to be sucker growths from
earlier principal trees extends well into the site some 8 - 10 metres.
The regeneration of sucker growths from elm root systems cannot be
guaranteed as they are frequently affected by the fungus either failing to
appear or perishing very early in their development.
Should regrowth occur and flourish it would not form a tidy or
continuous boundary hedgerow, indeed it would most likely be patchy and extend
into the site. In any event it would
not provide a satisfactory boundary treatment for quality properties bordering
on a residential road.
Regenerated elm would not be appropriate for a tight residential
development. I know of no such hedgerow
within any contemporary development that is sustainable. I will support the proposal if it were in a
rural development with adequate space to allow for the establishment of a broad
natural hedgerow or adjoining open land.
Hedgerow treatment to this site, where included, should be tight knit
and largely evergreen to meet the objectives of creating privacy, providing
security and avoiding natural litter traps and dumping grounds.
Finally, in terms of the
badger issue the landscape architect stated that during his extensive site
survey no evidence of old or freshly dug setts were observed and no clear
pathways were evident traversing the site.
A thorough investigation
has been carried out in respect of the possibility of bats being present within
the existing bungalow. The Council's Ecology
Officer's comments are self explanatory and are set out below.
The applicant has commissioned a bat survey and a report has been
produced by Woods Ecology Consultants (October 2003). This confirms the presence of a bat roost in the roof of the bungalow
which is proposed for demolition.
English Nature are being consulted on the findings of the report but it
seems virtually certain that they will recommend that there will be a need for
the developer to obtain a Habitats Regulation licence from DEFRA prior to
demolition of the building.
The conditions of a licence will stipulate the timing and method of
demolition of the bungalow and the necessary mitigation. We are currently seeking English Nature's
advice as to the details of this.
However, on the evidence provided in the report it seems likely that a
suitable licence application will prove successful.
Consequently, I would advise that a condition of any planning approval
should be that the timing and method of demolition and any mitigation should be
agreed with the LPA prior to demolition of the bungalow. There is no reason why development of the
site should not proceed prior to this to enable the building to be demolished
at an appropriate time to avoid disturbance to the bats.
A letter regarding the need for a DEFRA licence should accompany any
confirmation of planning approval.
At the time of preparing
report English Nature's comments are being sought and will be reported
accordingly. Also Members' attention is
drawn to suggested condition no.18 and the contents of the second
recommendation. I am certainly
satisfied that the applicant is aware of his duty with regard to this issue
evidenced by the commissioning of a report by an appropriate competent
ecologist.
General
In terms of general
boundary treatment applicant has indicated to me 2 metre high boarded fencing
with trellis on top to the main boundary.
This is obviously acceptable in principle, however care would need to be
taken with regard to the boundary treatment to the corner units, i.e. plots 1a,
1, 5a, 28 and 25 and these plots should be subject therefore of an appropriate
condition should Members be mindful to approve the application.
Some concern has been
expressed by the site clearance that has taken place prior to any consent being
granted. It is important to appreciate
that site clearance was necessary in order to carry out survey work and
establish levels on the site. This
information is essential in assessing the merits of any application.
Reference has been made to
the impact this proposal may have on local services, however it is important to
remember that this is an allocated site and therefore the issues of development
on allocated land and its impact on local services would have been an issue
taken up at that time and would have been taken into account during the
process.
The concerns relating to
potential overlooking and loss of privacy in respect of the properties which
front Westminster Lane (46 - 56 even numbers Westminster Lane) have been
considered and whilst there obviously will be some impact the distances
involved are such as to suggest that this would not involve a sustainable
reason to refuse the application. Total
distance back to back is 18 metres with the depth of the proposed gardens being
9 metres. Whilst the proposed houses
will stand higher than the existing, given these distances I do not consider
there will be any sustainable loss of privacy or overlooking occurring. Also, proposed fencing plan indicates the
erection of a 2 metre high boarded fence as previously described.
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 as described in the
evaluation section of this report, I am satisfied that all the numerous issues
have been addressed and that the proposal represents an appropriate type of
residential development on this important allocated site. Also I am confident that providing approval
is granted it will commence in the near future thus making an important
contribution to both the open market housing and affordable housing
demand. Although of a high density the
range of dwelling types are aimed at the lower end of the housing market,
possibly first time buyers which given the site's location close to Newport
town centre is in compliance with the demands identified in the Housing Needs
Survey. I therefore consider that the
proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained within the
UDP and therefore I recommend accordingly.
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration
of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990. |
|
2 |
No dwelling shall be occupied until the road improvements to
Westminster Lane as indicated on applicant's drawing no. QB/NC/1C have been
constructed to an adoptable standard in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access
for the proposed dwellings in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3 |
Details of the construction of the new road/courtyard along with
footpaths and car parking spaces with details of the disposal of surface
water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. Such details shall provide
for a roadway surface of tarmac, with the path and parking areas being in
contrasting block paving finishes.
Prior to commencement of work details of the texture and colour of the
block paving shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter only such
constructional details and finishes shall be used in the carrying out of the
development. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and
drainage for the proposed dwellings in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for new development and in the interest of the visual
amenities of the area in compliance with Policy T1 (Standards of Design) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and
drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance
with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway
and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Visibility splays of x = 4.5 metres and y = 70 metres 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 for New
Developments) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
The building shall not be occupied until a means of access for
pedestrians and/or cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the
approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of
facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site
and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is
provided within the site to enable refuse vehicles and fire appliances to
enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept
available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance
with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 37
parking spaces have been provided in the form indicated on the layout plan
hereby approved and thereafter all of
those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate maximum off street parking provision
in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
9 |
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. |
|
10 |
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. |
|
11 |
No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of
a surface water regulation system is designed and implemented to the
satisfaction of the Planning Authority in compliance within agreed calculations. The regulation system for the site must
ensure that the run off from the 1% probability storm is controlled and will
restrict the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a
greenfield. The scheme shall include
a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the
future. Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance in
compliance with Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No surface water drainage shall discharge into the existing combined
sewer in Westminster Lane. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is
available for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure
and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the 2
metre high close boarded boundary fencing indicated on the plan has been
erected and any such fencing shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity
and screening in the local area. |
|
14 |
Prior to occupation of units 3 - 11 inclusive, details shall be
submitted of the treatment of the south eastern rear boundary to those
properties and any such boundary treatment erected thereafter shall be in
accordance with the agreed details and shall be retained and maintained
thereafter. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of screening between
the proposed development and the existing development (nos. 46 - 56 even
numbers Westminster Lane) in compliance with Policy D1(Standards of Design)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved the landscaping
proposals indicated on the applicant's drawing no. PDM/03/01/1 shall be
completed and provision shall be made for the maintenance of such planting
during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is
satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
16 |
All planting areas shall be within raised beds suitably enclosed in
materials to be agreed and such beds shall not be removed or altered in size
without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of future visual amenity
in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
17 |
Before the development commences further landscaping proposals shall
be submitted indicating additional shrub planting beds within the parking
areas which serve plots 26, 27 and 28 and within the parking area which
serves plots 11, 12, 13 and 14. No
occupation of any of those units shall take place until the landscaping has
been implemented in accordance with agreed details. Provision shall be made for the maintenance of such landscaping
during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is
satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan and to ensure the areas are not used for additional
parking in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
18 |
No development shall take place including further site clearance on
the site until all existing trees/hedgerows to be retained on the site 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 and
hedgerows to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and
stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity in
compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
19 |
Prior to commencement of work the timing and method of demolition of
the existing bungalow on the site shall be agreed with the Local Planning
Authority along with the mitigation and timing of measures for alternative
bat roost sites within the development.
Any such programme and mitigation measures shall be carried out in
accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to a protected species
bats in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material
Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
Head of Planning Services