REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
SITE INSPECTION – 14 NOVEMBER 2003
|
1. |
TCP/25536 P/00701/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Registration Date: 15/04/2003 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Detached house (revised proposal - reduced length,
reduced height) (re-advertised application) 22 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318LD |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
Application subject to a
number of representations from local residents, Parish Council and local
Councillor, Cllr. A Mundy, and raises a number of issues including design
considerations and therefore Committee determination is appropriate.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
Application has taken
twenty nine weeks to process and is a minor application. It has taken more than eight weeks because
of the extensive level of negotiation, readvertisement and the need to take the
application to Committee.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Sloping site situated on
the north eastern side of Shore Road, currently accommodating an elongated
split level dwelling measuring approximately 15 metres in length by 5.5 metres
in width sited off the south eastern boundary.
Existing building, as with other buildings which immediately abut and
adjoin to the rear, are of traditional style of seaside architecture being
mainly small in size with timber clad finishes under shallow pitched roofs,
having in general a holiday chalet type appearance. The existing building has a maximum height of 4.2 metres (ground
to ridge) at its north eastern end reducing to 2.4 metres where it fronts onto
Shore Road.
Existing property stands
between holiday style chalet buildings with no.18 Shore Road abutting to the
south east and no.26 Shore Road abutting to the north west. There are also similar chalet properties
which abut the lower half of the plot with no.20 abutting the south eastern
boundary and no.28 abutting the north western boundary. Adjoining the rear boundary is property
no.24 Shore Road which sits at the base of the valley beyond which is a stream,
known as the Jordan stream. Beyond the stream is an area used for dinghy
parking by Gurnard Sailing Club which attaches to Gurnard Green.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
Consent sought for
replacement dwelling located in a similar location but measuring 14.5 metres by
maximum width of 6.3 metres, reducing to 5.5 metres at the south western end
where it faces Shore Road. The south
eastern elevation sits directly on the south eastern boundary over a length of
9.9 metres, however where it directly abuts property no.18 Shore Road, proposed
dwelling is set off that boundary by approximately 0.9 metres. In terms of its relationship with the north western
boundary where it abuts no.26 Shore Road, the proposed property is set a
distance of 1.1 metres measured off that adjoining property. In terms of
height the property is
single storey in height to the Shore Road frontage and two storey in height to
the rear. The dwelling will have a maximum
height of 6.95 metres at its north eastern end (rear) reducing to 4.85 metres
at its south western end where it fronts onto Shore Road.
Dwelling to be finished in
stained rough sawn timber cladding under painted galvanised steel sheeted
shallow pitched roof. Dwelling to
provide three bedroom accommodation on the lower floor level with living,
kitchen etc accommodation at upper floor level. Dwelling also to be provided with a small area of decking on the
lower floor with a substantial area of decking across the whole width of the
proposed dwelling to the rear end with a smaller area of decking to the
front. Dwelling is approximately 0.6
metres shorter than the length of the existing dwelling but is approximately
0.7 metres wider than the existing dwelling.
Additional comments have
been submitted by architects acting on behalf of applicant as follows:
"When the application was first lodged there were a number of
complaints from people living in the area.
Responding to these complaints and suggestions from the Planning
Officer, the proposals have been changed or amended so that the proposal is
now:
·
Reduced in overall size.
·
Lower in overall height.
·
No closer to its neighbours
than the existing building.
·
Creates no additional
overlooking.
·
Sits comfortably in the
street scape.
We have tried hard to produce a scheme which has the same feel as the
surrounding collection of close built buildings but which provides decent
family accommodation."
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The relevant policies of
Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:
G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development
G7 - Unstable Land
D1 - Standards of Design
D2 - Standards of Development within the Site
H5 - Infill Development
Site is within the
development envelope as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Highway Engineer raises no
comment (no change is circumstances, existing car parking space to be
retained).
Environment Agency raises
no objection.
Application was subject of
a site report by a structural engineer which has been vetted by the Council's
consulting geotechnical engineer who is of the opinion that "the
recommended foundations, i.e. the whole building, should be piles taken down at
least 8 metres plus the depth required to provide adequate bearing resistance
and with low friction sleeving over the top 8 metres, should fulfill the
requirements of PPG14 provided that the piles are substantial and designed to
withstand some lateral movement of the ground, i.e. are robust, of reasonable diameter
say a minimum 450 mm and are fully reinforced."
Engineer suggests that if
the base of the proposed building is lower than the adjacent buildings then the
foundation should be investigated and a construction method developed to ensure
support throughout the construction period.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Both the initial proposal
and the readvertised revised proposal have been before the Town Council and on
both occasions the Council objected to the proposal. Their comments in respect of the revised proposal are quoted as
follows:
That the Parish Council strongly objects to the application on the
grounds that the proposal amounts to overdevelopment of the site.
That there are land stability concerns in the area.
That the proposals are out of character with the surrounding dwellings
and would result in a serious loss of neighbouring amenities.
The Parish Council also
comments that the plans again seem not to accurately portray the proposed
development and little seems to have been changed to effectively address the
concerns and objections previously made in May. The Parish Council, therefore, is strongly opposed to the
proposed development.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Initial application
attracted nine letters of objection, eight from residents of Shore Road and one
from resident of The Avenue, along with objection from local Councillor and
Isle of Wight Society. Following
readvertisement of the application a total of eleven letters of objection received,
nine from residents of Shore Road, one each from resident of Solent View Road
and The Avenue and a letter from Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:
Dwelling too large and will appear cramped, therefore represents
overdevelopment.
Dwelling fails to respect slope of site and will appear excessively
massive when viewed from the north east (Gurnard Green).
Generally it is considered that the size of the dwelling is out of
keeping with the prevailing character of small scale dwellings in the area.
Concern expressed that ground conditions will be incapable of supporting
the development and that the foundations will unduly impact on neighbouring
properties.
Proposals could cause flooding problems.
Proposal may have an adverse impact on existing drainage systems.
Proposal will result in loss of privacy and light with reference to
overlooking and from the proposed balcony in respect of the immediately
adjoining dwellings, particularly the adjacent dwellings either side of the
plot.
Concern that the height of the dwelling where it is being built off the
south eastern boundary which will have an over dominant effect on the adjoining
property no.18 Shore Road.
Concern that the building is likely to encroach beyond the boundaries of
the plot.
Some objectors questions the accuracy of the plans.
Some objectors refer to applicant's contention that the proposal will
not result in loss of trees.
Construction works will cause substantial disturbance due to the
constraints of the size of the site and its narrowness.
An objector suggests that the proposal is contrary to the UDP policies
D1, H5, G4 and G7.
The revised proposal which was readvertised set the building a distance
of 0.9 metres off the south eastern boundary where it directly abutted the
dwelling no.18 Shore Road. However,
applicant indicated the building to be directly abutting the property on the
adjoining boundary no.26 Shore Road.
This revised siting attracted a specific letter of objection from the
owner of that property expressing concerns relating to fire hazards, inability
to maintain the adjoining property.
Copy of a letter has been
received from one of adjoining property owners which was circulated to all
Members of the Development Control Committee.
This letter raises no new issues which have not already been covered by
the report.
A letter has also been
received from the Local Member, Councillor A Mundy, suggesting that the
problems with regard to access to adjoining property could be solved by
reducing the width of the proposed building.
This would have the effect of taking the property away from the adjacent
properties on either side and give some symmetry to the building.
EVALUATION
Firstly it is important to
appreciate that in terms of the relationship with the two adjacent properties,
nos. 18 and 26 Shore Road, the proposed dwelling now being considered indicates
a gap either side of those two properties.
This is contrary to the initial and revised proposal which showed the
proposed dwelling either directly abutting no.18 and in the case of the revised
proposal directly abutting no.26 Shore Road.
The 0.9 metre gap now being indicated adjacent no.18 clearly assists in
providing the passage of light to the existing bay window which is located
directly on the party boundary.
Similarly the 1.1 metre gap now being indicated both from the curtilage
and particularly the property itself no.26 Shore Road, removes the immediate
concerns of the owner of that property.
It is important, however,
to stress that both adjoining property owners continue to express concerns
regarding the overall height and mass of the property emphasising its adverse
effect on the general pattern and development in the area.
Members will note that this
application has been the subject of a number of design adjustments which
applicant considers addresses some of the immediate concerns of neighbouring
properties, however, I am of the view that this is as far as the applicant is
willing to go and considers
that the overall scale of the dwelling, although larger than the existing, will
sit comfortably on this site. This, I
suggest, is the overriding issue which Members will need to consider carefully.
Two factors which Members
need to consider is the comparison of the proposed dwelling to the existing and
whether the increase in scale, with reference to height and mass, is
acceptable. With regard to the later
issue, the resultant impact of the proposed dwelling on the general pattern of
development in the area when viewed particularly from Shore Road and from the
northern area Gurnard Green etc is particularly important.
Whilst recognising the
subjective nature of this particular issue I am of the view that the size of
the dwelling is not excessive in this case and it sits on a plot which is
certainly larger than most in the area and because of its location I do not
consider it will be excessively dominant.
I certainly consider that
the reduction in width referred to above has provided that element of space,
particularly when viewed from Shore Road, and has overcome any potential for
this proposal to appear cramped. I also
consider that when viewed from the Green it sits reasonably comfortably between
the various properties which surround.
With regard to immediate
effect on the neighbouring property, with particular reference to the adjoining
property no.18 Shore Road, it is important to appreciate that the existing
property stands directly on the boundary.
Therefore whilst there will be an increase in height there will be no
change in the situation apart from the effect that the increase in height may
have on that adjoining property.
In terms of any potential
overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly in respect of proposed balconies,
it is noted from the site inspection that there are a number of balconies
attached to adjoining properties, all of which generally overlook one
another. This apart, however, I
consider any potential overlooking from the proposed balconies/decking to this
dwelling could easily be overcome by the imposition of a condition requiring
screening to the sides of those features.
I would suggest an appropriate condition if Members are mindful to
approve the application.
With regard to other
issues, the question of ground stability has been adequately addressed by the
submission of an appropriate report and Members will note the comments of the
Council's Consulting Engineer.
With regard to any flooding
effect, the Environment Agency has raised no objection and in terms of drainage
this proposal will merely discharge into the drainage which serves the existing
dwellings.
The applicant has
deliberately designed the dwelling in terms of material finishes to pick up on
the pattern of development in the area in terms of the seaside architectural
appearance.
Whilst I fully acknowledge
the concerns being expressed by local residents I consider the dwelling for
which consent is now being sought is acceptable and while having an impact on
the area I do not consider that impact will be sufficiently excessive to
justify a recommendation for refusal. I
therefore do not consider there are any reasonable planning objections to this
proposal.
Issues raised by the Local
Member have been addressed in the revised plans submitted by the applicants and
are covered in this report.
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 the negotiations
and design adjustments have resulted in a dwelling which will sit comfortably
within the essentially random nature of the development in the area and will
not adversely impact on the general character of the area. Impact on
neighbouring properties has now been addressed either by the adjustments
themselves or by appropriate condition and concerns regarding ground conditions
and foundations have been fully addressed.
I am satisfied, therefore, that the development to this site as
indicated is acceptable and that the impact on neighbouring properties will not
be such as to warrant a refusal of the application.
2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicant reminding him of his responsibility in respect of the Party Wall Act 1996 which requires the adjoining owners to be notified of intentions with regard to party walls and party boundaries.
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 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 in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and
reenacting that order, with or without modification, no windows shall be
constructed in the south east elevation. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining
property and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle
of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved a 1.8 m high
screen of opaque finish shall be erected on the south east facing and north
west facing sides of the two deck areas on the rear elevation as indicated on
the applicant's drawing no. 1000-020 revision E. Such screen shall be of agreed design and shall be retained and
maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining
properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
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 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 adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
Head of Planning Services