PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 14 MAY 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

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 PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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.

Background Papers

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 Legal Services Manager, 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.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 14 MAY 2002

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

www.iow.gov.uk/council/committees/developmentcontrol/14-5-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 14 MAY 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 14 MAY 2002

(a)       TCP/5964H                Raffles Inn, Steyne Road                                          BEMBRIDGE

(b)       TCP/6387L                 Land off Blythe Way                                                  SHANKLIN

(c)       TCP/15985D              3 Eastcliff Road, Old Village                                      SHANKLIN

(d)       TCP/20059J               Chicken enclosure, Fairoaks Farm                            WOOTTON

(e)       TCP/22175                 4 Marsh Road                                                            GURNARD

(f)        TCP/23979                 Shorefield House, Madeira Lane                               FRESHWATER

PART II

Site and Location

Application relates to a recently cleared site situated on south western side of York Avenue which has benefit of small return frontage onto Marsh Road which is a small cul-de-sac running parallel to former highway.

Relevant History

In respect of larger site including corner property number 23 Castle Street planning consent granted in 1989 for conversion and extension to existing shop and flat to provide retail at ground floor level with eight flats above. This consent was renewed in 1993 and again in 1998.

More recently consent granted for conversion and extension to existing shop and flats to provide retail at ground floor with eight flats, granted consent in November 1998.

Details of Application

Application seeks consent to construct three-storey property on this cleared site having L-shaped footprint.

Development which would link corner property number 23 Castle Street with adjacent development in York Avenue provides retail unit and two 2-bedroom flatted units. Four further two bedded flat units are shown on first and second floors.

In design terms brick building would present first and second floor bay window features and balconies with pedestrian access gained to upper floors via rear staircase. No off-street parking is incorporated within current proposal.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Site located within town centre boundary and also identified as retail only frontage within adopted Development Plan.

Policy R1 seeks to ensure that planning applications that protect and maintain and/or enhance retail function of defined town centres as a whole are approved.

Policy R5 deals with retail only frontages and advises that planning applications within such areas will be approved if the development proposed is a Retail A1 Use on the ground floor. Applications for A2 and A3 Uses will only be approved where specific criteria are met.

Representations

East Cowes Parish Council comment that shop floor area is not to be reduced and that development should only be approved on condition that shop remains on site and not removed at a later date.

East Cowes Business Association refer to previous consents on this site and have been advised accordingly of relevant consents.

Sixteen standardised letters have been received objecting to proposal on grounds that as the Development Plan designates York Avenue as retail only frontage whole of ground floor should be retained in retail use. Revised plan shows shop unit of just over two metres wide and doubt is cast over viability of such retail unit and adequacy to run business therefrom. Recent developments in East Cowes have seriously undermined integrity of retail use only area and any further changes of use would have detrimental effect on character and vitality of town centre. Writers state they wish to save town and shops.

One further letter has been received objecting to proposal again on Development Plan policy and relative size of proposed retail unit. Writer refers to recent developments in York Avenue where small retail units are proposed which is claimed will either be unusable or are clear contravention of Development Plan.

Comments of Environment Agency are awaited.

Evaluation

Considerations relate to both central Government guidance in respect of retail development and adopted Development Plan policy of Local Authority. Other issues relate to highway matters and any comments from Environment Agency concerning flood risk.

Advice contained within PPG6 "Town Centre and Retail Developments" advises that Development Plans should provide sites with different types of retail developments and applications for non-retail use of these sites should not normally be permitted. In same document with regards to mixed use development advice suggests that in order to avoid areas of town centre losing vitality due to large single use developments Planning Authorities should promote mixed use development to provide additional housing and create lively street frontages. To encourage such developments Authority should take flexible approach to residential and car parking and other standards.

Adopted Development Plan policy shows the majority of site within retail only frontage where policy R5 applies. Policy seeks to retain Retail A1 Use with alternative A2/A3 Uses in appropriate circumstances. Policy also advises applications which would create dead frontage or otherwise not contribute to character and vitality of shopping area will be refused.

Local Planning Authority has maintained consistent approach in dealing with applications in York Avenue against background of need to retain retail uses at ground floor level in identified shopping centres and recent decisions have been consistent with this aim. Sites on opposite side of York Avenue planning consents have been granted for developments incorporating retail floor space at ground floor level, and on additional site opposite application site Members may recall that outline consent was granted for seven dwellings and a tourist information office subject to conditions requiring shop front window displays whilst allowing development of this site incorporating shop, office and residential use at ground floor level. A point should also be made that housing provision represented affordable housing element in respect of Old Road development site and therefore was given appropriate weight in the light of guidance contained within circular on affordable housing. This use of site was considered acceptable and in line with central Government advice.

With regards to site under consideration it is important to note that planning consent was granted in March 1999 for conversion and extension to existing shop and flat to provide two retail units and twelve flats above. This site included property at corner of York Avenue and Castle Street (number 23). Approved scheme involved retention of existing retail units at ground floor level and introduction of infill residential accommodation to replace the existing ancillary storage building. Whilst that proposal did introduce non-retail use at ground floor level the extent of existing retail frontage remained unaffected. Whilst potential for additional retail floor space is lost, scheme retained existing retail element.

Whilst not including number 23 current application is very similar to 1999 approval. Main change to scheme is that proposal involves three-storey development across entire York Avenue frontage and incorporates external changes to the design of the building.

In the light of the extant planning consent on this site there is no reasonable objection to current proposal. Bearing in mind previous approved scheme, whilst proposal is contrary to policy R5 mixed development of this nature complies with guidance in the relevant Planning Policy Guidance Notes in helping to revitalise locality, bringing buildings into active use on a site which has to a large extent laid dormant for many years. Proposal does not increase extent of non-retail frontage from that previously existing and therefore Members may consider opportunity should be taken to approve scheme which reinstates partial retail use of this site at ground floor level. Mass, scale and design of proposal is in other respects similar to extant approval on this site.

Proposal complies with zonal parking policy which does allow for no off-street parking in this locality.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that proposal represents acceptable form of mixed development on this site reinstating previous retail unit at ground floor level thereby helping to protect vitality of town centre outweighing other policy considerations in this instance. I therefore recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Site and Location

Application relates to an almost square site having an overall depth of approximately 31.5 metres by width of approximately 28 metres situated on the western side of Arctic Road virtually opposite Medina Court Industrial Estate. Immediately to the south is a recent development of eight terraced three storey town houses, whilst abutting to the north is an unadopted gravel road which links the Fraser Close development to Arctic Road. Adjoining the western boundary is the northern extremity of the footpath/cycle track (FP32) being the line of the former railway.

The site contains a number of trees, four of which are subject of a Tree Preservation Order, three on the western boundary and one on the road frontage. Site currently accommodates a pair of semi-detached properties which are in poor state of repair. Land rises to the west and is slightly elevated above Arctic Road. A fence constructed recently now forms the northern boundary of the site.

Relevant History

None in respect of the application site. However, the adjoining development received detailed consent in January 1999.

Details of Application

Detailed consent is sought for a four-storey terraced block comprising seven flats in the southern part of the site and three town houses in the northern part, adjacent the unadopted road.

In detail, revised proposal is to provide six two bedroom flats at ground, first and second floor with a three bedroom flat on the third floor within the roof space. The footprint of the flat block is 14 metres depth by 11.6 metres width.

Three houses are proposed to provide four bedroom accommodation on four floors with the third floor accommodation again being within the roof space. The footprint indicates a depth of 10 metres with block of three having an overall width of 13.5 metres.

Block to be constructed in decorated scored rendering through ground and first floor facing brick on second floor which includes two gabled features on the flats at third floor level all under a slated gabled roof with the house roofs in the form of stopped gables.

Overall the block has a width of 25 metres with the flats set back 12 metres off the back of the footpath to Arctic Road and the houses 13 metres. Each house is provided with a patio with semi-circular staircase to raised garden which abuts the western boundary. Flats also have a patio running the whole width of the rear boundary with steps again up to a communal garden abutting the western boundary.

Proposal includes the retention of the protected trees both on the front and rear boundary with additional landscaping where appropriate, and retention of all the existing boundary fences. Ten car parking spaces are shown with a new access being formed approximately 16 metres south of the junction of the unadopted road with Arctic Road and south of the crown spread of the preserved trees on the frontage boundary. Essentially the area to the front of the flats and houses would be a courtyard with hard paving and landscaping features.

Height of terraced block, to ridge will be 13.4 metres for the flats, and 11.7 metres for the houses. The flats approximately 3 metres above ridge height of the adjoining block, with the houses approximately 1.2 metres higher.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing - March 2000, PPG13 - Transport.

PPG3 - Housing - March 2000

This document emphasises the following:

Meet housing requirements of the whole community.

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of green field sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development and ensuring accessibility by public transport, jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities (30 dph to 50 dph quoted) which could be increased in town centre areas with good public transport.

Place needs of people before ease of traffic movement in design and layout of residential development.

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between housing and jobs and reducing the level of parking. More than 1.5 off street spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Make good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive high quality living environments in which people will choose to live.

PPG13 - Transport

This document reflects the parking and transport policies within PPG3 and the Government's commitment to sustainable development and reducing travel by private car.

Unitary Development Plan

Site forms part of an allocated site for residential development including the land to the south on which eight units have been constructed. Site is also situated within development envelope boundary.

Specific policies which apply are:

Policy G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

Policy D1 - Standards of Design.

Policy D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

Policy H3 - Allocation for Residential Development Sites.

Policy H6 - High Density Residential Development.

Policy TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

Policy U11 - Infrastructure and Service Provision.

Policy D3 - Landscaping.

Representations

Cowes Town Council commented as follows in respect of the initial proposal:

"... the Town Council has no objection but would like a guarantee that the trees are retained possibly by way of a Tree Preservation Order".

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved advising the following:

"The proposed wall fronting Arctic Road will need to be adjusted to provide adequate visibility. In order to achieve a 2 by 70 metre visibility splay the majority of the wall length will need to be reduced to one metre above carriageway level. In addition, at the access it should be splayed 30 degrees to provide additional safety for passing pedestrians."

Engineer also made reference to cycle parking requirements and substandard size of parking spaces as drawn, requiring adjustments to be made accordingly.

Environment Agency recommends conditions as follows:

Foul drainage shall be to mains foul sewer.

Scheme indicating provision of surface water drainage shall be submitted.

Assessment of contamination on site should be carried out determining the water pollution potential with method and extent of that investigation being agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing. Any such agreed scheme shall be implemented accordingly.

Southern Water has identified that there is a sewer capacity problem to the north in respect of Arctic Road with there being frequent flooding problems in relation to one property and blockages occurring in the sewer running to Whitegate pumping station. They would not want surface water to discharge to the foul sewer in Arctic Road as it could exacerbate the existing situation. They confirmed that it is proposed during the current 5-year plan to improve the sewers downstream of this site but at the moment they are unable to say how much greater capacity will be available as a result of these works.

Council's Footpaths Officer makes reference to letter received from local resident in Fraser Close which expresses concerns about encroachment onto existing pedestrian access and whether proper provision will be made to ensure proposals do not encroach in future or prejudice future improvements to the cycle path.

Isle of Wight Society object on the grounds that proposal represents overdevelopment.

Initial application subject of eight letters of objection all from residents of Arctic Road with points raised being summarised as follows:

Development of excessive height resulting in an over dominance and loss of light.

Proposal is likely to contribute to an increase in on-street parking which already presents a problem in Arctic Road.

Concern that the proposal will adversely affect gravel lane access leading from Arctic Road to the cycle track which is well used by children attending the local school.

Vehicular access use of the gravel track which local residents consider would present a danger to pedestrians and cyclists using the cycle track.

Proposal indicates an inadequacy in number of parking spaces.

Proposal may have adverse effect on local red squirrel habitat.

One objector questions land ownership.

There have been incidents of subsidence in the area, contrary to the answer on the application form which declares that there is no ground movement in the area.

Concern that the proposal extends beyond current building lines.

Following the readvertisement of the application four further letters have been received, again all from residents of Arctic Road with additional points being summarised as follows:

Proposal will exacerbate further general effect on wildlife habitat which has been caused by recent developments in the area.

Loss of trees on adjoining developments has increased noise disturbance from lorries and other large vehicles using the industrial development to the south.

Evaluation

Main issues to consider are listed as follows:

Appropriateness of density, mass and scale.

Visual impact on immediate area and wider area.

Appropriateness of parking provision.

It is important to appreciate that this is a brown field site allocated for residential development and as such best use needs to be made of such sites to take pressures off green field sites. Whilst accepting that this is fairly intensive development it does relate readily to the adjoining development to the south and more particularly is situated within an area characterised by high density traditional Victorian housing and is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Proposal also provides for seven flats which, as Members are aware, is the type of unit for which there is a significant need as indicated in the recent Housing Needs survey.

It is accepted that in mass and scale terms this proposal will have a significant townscape impact and will stand higher than adjoining properties. I do not necessarily consider that this is inappropriate however, given that the site is separated from the traditional Victorian dwellings by the unadopted gravel track which links through to Fraser Close. This along with the fact that negotiations have been undertaken to ensure that the proposal follows quite closely the architectural appearance of the recent development to the south, should result in an overall development at this end of Arctic Road which can reflect its surroundings but make its own statement. Also the increased height does enable advantage to take place of views across the River Medina towards East Cowes. Again I consider this makes best use of this important site.

Members should not only appreciate that this proposal will have a significant impact in respect of this area of Arctic Road but will also be relatively visually prominent when viewed from East Cowes with particular reference to the recent marina development opposite the site across the River Medina. Any views of this development will be restricted to the upper floors of this proposal and I am satisfied that they have been designed to contribute to the views from East Cowes and will form and appropriate foreground to Shamblers Copse in the background.

The parking provision has been set at a level equating to one space per unit with all the parking being provided within the front courtyard area accessed off Arctic Road. The layout for car parking is fairly informal and providing appropriate surface treatments are used, this area should contribute to the overall appearance of the development. Access has been sited to ensure minimum disturbance to the existing oak tree on the frontage, and if Members are mindful to approve I consider an appropriate condition should be applied.

Site is situated within Car Parking Zone 3 defined in the Unitary Development Plan, which advises 0 - 75% of guideline should be applied. Highway Engineer makes no comment regarding parking provision and is satisfied that the access and other factors are acceptable subject to condition. I appreciate that the ten spaces represents the minimal parking allocation, however, as the proposal relates, in the main, to flats, such provision is considered to be acceptable. When applying the guidelines to this application the 75% requirement would be 20 spaces whereas the 10 spaces represent 37%.

Members will note that unlike the initial proposal there is to be no use of the unadopted gravel road which links to Fraser Close for vehicular access purposes, neither is it required for pedestrian access to the development. This apart however, I have suggested to the applicants that they should consider appropriate surfacing of the existing access to cater for its use by pedestrians and cyclists. I consider that this would be of benefit to the local community and it would not be unreasonable to impose a "Grampian" condition to this effect. The Council's Footpaths Officer fully supports this proposal.

Regarding other matters I note the doubts being raised by local residents regarding land ownership, and applicants agent has confirmed in writing that his client is in ownership of all the land which is the subject of the application and that the correct certificate has been submitted with the application.

The concerns relating to ground stability have been addressed by the submission of a desktop study and walkover survey carried out by appropriately qualified consulting engineers. This acknowledges that the structural problems in respect of the existing dwellings on site are result of differential foundation movement caused by the drought summers of the mid-1980's. Also reference made to the proximity to the large masonry arch which housed the winch machinery for a Victorian dry dock, which extends under Arctic Road to the kerb line in front of the houses of the terrace. Significantly the engineer suggests that "... if these past and potential ground stability related problems are recognised, and in this respect it will be necessary for some physical ground investigation work to be carried out in order to fully assess these, there is no reason why the site cannot be successfully redeveloped for residential purposes as has already been done on land immediately to the south adjoining numbers 281 and 282, and also further down slope where the new factory units have been constructed on piled foundations".

Given the above I am satisfied that the applicants have given this matter their consideration and the information now provided is sufficient to ensure that the Planning Authority has fulfilled the requirements of PPG14 ensure that safe development can take place on this site.

Members will note the comments of the Southern Water in respect of drainage and this matter has been the subject of some discussion with the applicant who has now thoroughly researched the existing situation. The result of this research is that foul drainage only will be taken into the existing sewer in Arctic Road where that sewer flows in a northerly direction. Providing no surface water drainage discharges into this sewer then this will be in compliance with the concerns of the Southern Water. Surface water drainage problems have been more difficult to resolve but again following extensive research, the surface water drainage will discharge in a southerly direction using the same surface water culvert to the south which was used in respect of the adjoining development. This will result in a surface water drain being laid along the cycle track in a southerly direction. Consultation has been carried out with the Council's Footpaths Officer who raises no objection.

In terms of the above the applicant has provided additional information with regard to the culvert which runs from the upper side of the cycle track, under the cycle track and adjoining ground, part of Arctic Road and then discharges directly into the River Medina, is a 800 mm square culvert. The open ditch above this point being upper and across Shamblers Copse is not piped and is difficult to define its course and what, if any, surface water discharges into this open ditch. Finally, applicant recognises the level difficulties in terms of the parking area which is set lower than the cycle track and therefore is suggesting that the surface water from this area, which is relatively small and unlikely to generate a great level of surface water, will be dealt with via a small pump chamber lifted to the upper level and connected into the proposed surface water drain along the rear cycle track discharging into the piped culvert.

With regard to trees on the site Members will note that the application indicates retention of the major trees with particular reference to the two trees on the frontage to Arctic Road and trees along the rear boundary adjacent the cycle path. It is accepted that some surgery (thinning and crown reduction) will be required to these trees, however, the development has been designed in such a way as to ensure ground levels etc. around the trees are retained and if Members are mindful to approve the application I suggest a condition requiring their protection during construction work.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as detailed in this report I am of the opinion that the proposal in its revised form should result in a scheme which does justice to this important site effectively completing the development on this allocated site. All environmental impact matters have been addressed and although a substantial development I consider the mass and scale is acceptable and will make a valuable visual contribution, particularly when viewed from the River Medina and East Cowes. Given this assessment I consider conditional approval to be an appropriate recommendation.

                       Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

Representations

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval.

Highway Engineer formerly recommended refusal, but following the receipt of revised plans further comments have been sought and will be reported.

Two letters of objection on grounds of increased traffic and possible overlooking. One letter requests that conifers are removed from the site.

Evaluation

This is an irregularly shaped residential site having boundaries with the Church, the Fire Station, the Cemetery and several residential properties at Walls Road, Crossways and Lane End Road at Bembridge. Access to the site is presently gained via Crossways and a garage court, the site being located behind Housing Association flats fronting part of Crossways. The site is presently occupied by a single bungalow which originally occupied the whole site including the sites of those chalet bungalows built to the north west, fronting Lane End Road, in the last few years. Boundaries of the site are fairly dense hedgerows plus trees and fencing.

This application seeks consent to demolish a garage building and the existing dwelling which is constructed of timber and corrugated sheeting and for the erection of three small bungalows with garages, served by a private access drive off the garage court. One dwelling would occupy that area immediately adjoining the garage court and where the present dwelling's garage lies, and two dwellings are shown in the existing curtilage of the dwelling. Although in outline form the siting and access are to be considered at this stage which means that the footprint of dwellings would be set if consent is granted.

In October 2001 planning permission was refused for the demolition of the bungalow and it's replacement with four bungalows with parking and alterations to vehicular access on grounds of overdevelopment. This is a revised scheme reducing the numbers to three, a scheme which gives each dwelling a greater amount of amenity space and easing the parking and turning provision.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, density, effect on adjoining properties and space around the buildings.

The reduction in numbers from four to three dwellings allows greater flexibility of the site, a larger amount of space around the buildings and amenity space together with a more appropriate provision of turning facility. Although the land is essentially a backland site, matters of loss of privacy are eased with the revised scheme and bearing in mind only bungalows are proposed, overlooking is unlikely to occur if adequate boundary treatments are put in place and sufficient landscaping is either retained or provided.

Although in outline form siting is to be considered at this stage which sets not only the position of the buildings but also the size of the footprint. Plans indicate each of the dwellings to be 8 metres by nearly 6 metres comprising two bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and living room with the access drive running along the eastern side of the gardens to the flats. With adequate boundary screening loss of privacy is unlikely to occur to any of the properties.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, three small bungalows would provide an additional two dwellings on the site whilst maintaining adequate parking, amenity space and privacy to adjoining properties, consistent with UDP policies D1 and D2.

                       Recommendation         -       Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Sport England object due to the loss of or prejudice to the use of a playing field or land last used as a playing field.

Scottish and Southern Energy PLC has no objection.

Five letters of objection, one of which was signed by 18 parties objecting on grounds of dangerous access especially to school children through increased traffic, visual impact of ski slope, adverse visual effect of security fencing, loss of wildlife habitats, destruction of open space concept. Development contrary to UDP policy, loss of privacy, creation of a precedent for incremental development, noise pollution and loss of green space.

Evaluation

Fairway Park is an almost square tract of land approximately 120 metres by 120 metres located on the west side of The Fairway and bounded by the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Roseway, The Fairway, The Medeway and, on its southern side, by the footpath linking The Fairway with The Medeway just to the north of the properties in Fairmead Close.

The site is presently unused and overgrown, last used as a football ground about 8 - 10 years ago. It has been the subject of planning applications for alternative uses, more recently in July 1997 an outline application for residential development of 38 dwellings was refused. The reasons for refusal were the significant loss of open space within the Lake Parish which would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area, contrary to the Council's policy to retain such land, the fact that adequate land had been allocated for residential development within the area, inadequate amenity or play space and the fact that the site was not allocated for residential development in the Development Plan. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 24 July 1998.

In December 1999 an application for the use of the land as a woodland cemetery was refused on the grounds that the development would result in significant loss of open space with the potential for a playing field within the Lake Parish and contrary to local and national policy, similar to the previous proposal.

In July 2001 an outline application for a tennis and racquets club was also refused. Whilst submitted in outline form, the remarkably detailed plans submitted with the application, comprehensively detailed the development envisaged. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 21 November 2001.

In March 2002 an application seeking consent for the change of use from the former football club to a garden centre with associated single storey reception building, security fencing, access and car parking was also refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in a significant loss of open space with potential for a playing field within the Lake Parish, detrimental to the amenities and character of the area contrary to Policy L4 of the UDP which seeks to retain land for recreational and amenity purposes and contrary to general guidance to resist pressures for development of open space. In addition the development also conflicted with the wider public interest contrary to the thrust of national planning policy as contained in PPG17.

The various applications and subsequent appeals have consistently been dismissed due to the loss of the playing field and loss of open space.

The current application seeks consent to use this vacant, open but overgrown former football ground for the erection of a dry-ski slope, for the erection of a reception building, formation of parking and the erection of security fencing. The application has been submitted in outline form with only access to be considered at this stage but the additional details supplied with the application, showing the type of building to be erected and the type of security fencing is submitted for guidance purposes and the plan of the site is also submitted for guidance purposes showing the layout of the car parking, the position of the reception building and the position of the dry-ski slope which shows merely a rectangle in the centre of the site, 80 metres by 40 metres, created by importing bulk fill material. It is also stated that the slope will be tapered to existing ground level, that the surface will be normal dry-ski matting with the sides top soiled and seeded. Additional information requested indicates that the maximum height of the proposed slope is envisaged as 7 metres above existing ground level and that it is intended to provide a button/drag lift located on one side of the slope to enable participants to access the summit.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and matters relating to access and traffic generation and possible effects on adjoining properties.

As with the previous applications, matters relating to access and parking are considered to be acceptable. The plan shows sufficient parking for approximately 62 vehicles, no. 40 The Fairway, a small bungalow, being demolished at the northern side of the access road to enable a new road access and junction to be formed.

Turning to effects on adjoining properties, if any, these are likely to be through noise and disturbance of vehicles, spectators and participants but it is envisaged that these levels would be no greater than that which would be realised if the former football ground had continued its usage and, indeed, if it recommenced. Bearing in mind the Council's policy in respect of this site is to retain recreational and sporting provision, it is envisaged that the levels of noise likely if the use starts again on this site will be roughly the same. Accordingly I do not consider that effect on adjoining properties is likely to be any greater with the proposal than the site's authorised use. Visual impact on adjoining properties is not considered to be significant due to the height of the slope and distances involved.

This leaves the determining factor to be that of policy and principle, in effect loss of the potential to reinstate the playing field. This proposal is quite different from previous proposals on this site in as much that it seeks consent to carry out physical works to provide an outside sporting facility by creating a dry-ski slope. Previous development proposals have sought permission for development which would either develop the site or change its use, developments which would have resulted in either the loss of the open space or the playing field or both, but this application seeks a development which would result in the retention of land primarily as open space and for sport purposes. It does, however, result in a development which would prejudice the potential as a playing field although, it is acknowledged, could result in the provision of a smaller playing pitch but for limited purposes such as five a side football.

The reason for refusing the last application, which sought consent to establish a garden centre was:-

"The proposal would result in a significant loss of open space with potential for a playing field within Lake Parish. This would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area contrary to Policy L4 or the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan which seeks to retain land for recreational and amenity purposes and general guidance to resist pressures for development of open space. It also conflicts with the wider public interest contrary to the thrust of national planning policy as contained in PPG17."

The proposed development of a dry-ski slope and its associated reception building and car parking would not result in the loss of open space per se, nor land in recreational use. It would, however, result in the loss of the potential to re-establish a full sized football pitch as existed on this site previously.

Sport England are a statutory consultee and have raised an objection to the application 'as it would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft Deposit Local Plan...'

PPG17 refers specifically to playing fields and in paragraph 32 sets out the Government's policy:

"The Government is determined that playing fields should not be lost to development unless there is an established surplus of all forms of open space. Playing fields, whether school playing fields or those owned by other public, private or voluntary organisations, are of special significance for their recreational and amenity value and their contribution to the green spaces in the urban environment. If playing fields are no longer required for their original purpose, consideration should first be given to their use to meet other needs for recreational land in the wider community."

Planning proposals have been consistently refused for development of this site as each proposal has, to date, sought the loss of the potential playing field and/or the open space. it is clear that the Council's intention for this site is to restore the former playing field and any development which prejudices that aim will be resisted.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations in the Evaluation section above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to local and national planning policy to protect playing fields from development.

       Recommendation         -      Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Archeological Officer comments that the proposed development is on a site of Archeological interest.

Newport Area Forum objected to original scheme on grounds that proposed equipment is too large and would therefore unsettle the charm of Church Litten Park, cause an obstruction for future events held in the park and will act as a magnet for undesirable behaviour during the evenings.

Isle of Wight Gardens Trust has submitted a detailed report in respect of this application as Church Litten is one of twenty-nine parks and gardens of local interest listed in the UDP. The Gardens Trust understand the desire for a play area in the centre of Newport but are firmly of the opinion that the development under consideration will adversely affect the landscape and character of Church Litten Park and that it is in conflict with Policy B10 of the UDP. The Gardens Trust therefore recommend that the present planning application for a play area be refused.

Islandwatch recognise the need for a play area but object on grounds that it will lead to further loss of green space in Newport town centre. It is suggested that the library car park or even the Orchard Street car park could be used as a venue for proposed play area.

The Head teacher of Nodehill Middle School recognises the need for such a facility in Newport but is of the opinion that this is not a good location and would make the vicinity vulnerable to vandalism and undesirable gatherings. He states that the area of land adjacent to the school would be better developed as an open space for all members of the community to enjoy for a variety of purposes without the destruction of permanent play apparatus.

Six letters received supporting application on grounds that Newport is in desperate need of such a facility and that this seems to be an ideal place for a new play area as there is easy access, being close to the Bus Station and local shops. It is also easily overlooked which may mitigate the risk of vandalism.

A petition submitted signed by 41 people and headed 'Please will you support this venture by signing below if you wish for a play area in Church Litten'. The petition is attached to a press release indicating progress of the project so far and indicating sponsorship of £32,265.30 from land fill tax money made possible by match funding from Newport Forum and Marks and Spencer. It confirms Church Litten was the proved favourite when a choice of locations for needed outdoor play space was established with particular benefits of proximity to facilities such as toilets and shops and CCTV installation later this year. £100,000 is being invested in central Newport enhancing the facilities already in place and providing much needed play area for local children.

Isle of Wight Gardens Trust has been involved in discussions directly with the applicants and has considered the revised plan produced as a result of that consultation. The Trust understands the need for a play area close to the centre of Newport; upper age limit of twelve is sensible; mainly unpainted wooden construction of a reduced size to the original proposal was also agreed to be sensible; the suggested location within Church Litten Park was agreed to be the safest and least obtrusive. However, a meeting of the Committee and ordinary Members was held to view the earlier decision and notwithstanding the points of agreement/compromise set out above, affirmed the earlier conclusion of the Trust that:

"The application if approved will adversely affect the landscape character of Church Litten Park and that it conflicts with Policy B10 of the UDP."

The Trust does not believe that the proposed play area in the historic Church Litten site is likely to achieve the Government's aim of enhancing the quality of life of local communities by bringing improvements to urban and rural community spaces. The Trust believes that risks of vandalism etc and high maintenance/repair costs will debase the quality of life. Carefully selected planting would better meet the aim and such a plan would be incompatible with an adjacent play area. In a positive manner, the Trust suggests that one of three sites under consideration for development (the fire station, the bus terminal and the area opposite St George's football ground) might be suitable for such dedicated play provision.

The Council's Contract Services Manager has written in support of the proposal outlining the lead up to the submission of this application and referring to the Stephen Jenkins Memorial Playground at Sandham Grounds which he believes has acted as a catalyst for other groups around the Island. He confirms, as officer responsible for the park, that the provision of the playground correctly sited within the park will not impinge on any current or future event that is currently held within the garden. He points out that the site was previously occupied by a doctor's surgery which was destroyed during the war, it meets the criteria set out by national standards of the provision of play and is sympathetic within the park. It will be in view of CCTV cameras to be installed in May. Design and equipment has to meet European standards for playground construction and Council's performance indicators necessary for insurance purposes. He recommends use of natural products for equipment and primary colours only where necessary. Maximum acceptable platform height of equipment is unlikely to exceed 2.4 metres. In order to reduce impact on the green area of the park, he suggests grass reinforced mat to provide a safety surface around the equipment; the playground itself would occupy no more than 5% of the total area of park with equipment itself occupying less than 2%. The proposal for a play area received backing of elected Members at the January Leisure Committee and this went forward to Council's Executive to adopt, subject of course to necessary planning permission. He suggests that more family use of the park will reduce anti-social behaviour and may lead to recreation of more floral interest as vandalism may be reduced. The play area is necessary for the town and if correctly managed, will be an ideal facility for the whole community and will regenerate further interest from the parks' network. Actual details of equipment will depend on success of fundraising and could be discussed in due course if principle is accepted.

Comments of the Architectural Liaison Officer, with particular regard to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act have been requested and any comments will be reported at the meeting.

Evaluation

Members will be familiar with Church Litten Park which provides a pleasant area of open space immediately north of Medina Avenue and east of Newport Library and Nodehill Middle School. Church Litten Park is relatively level and open with its pleasant character further enhanced by a variety of mature trees with a path meandering its way through from Medina Avenue to South Street.

Consent is sought for the provision of an enclosed play area situated approximately 37 metres north of Medina Avenue and 12 metres east of boundary shared with Nodehill Middle School. Proposed play area is oval and has been reduced in size from original submission which was 32.2 metres by 19.5 metres to 31.2 metres by 17.5 metres and is shown to be enclosed by 1.2 metre high bow top boundary fence. It was originally shown to contain a variety of equipment including a large wooden climbing structure (wet dock), a "shipwreck bounty" and numerous other pieces of play equipment, which in the main will be constructed of timber. The timber climbing facility and "shipwreck bounty" would have covered a considerable portion of play area, with a maximum height in the region of 3 to 4 metres. Applicants now indicate that they would like to remove the 'Bounty' and 'wet dock' systems as shown on the originally submitted plan and replace with smaller pieces of equipment. Other pieces of equipment would still be provided and would be constructed of natural wood wherever possible. However, because equipment may be used by children with impaired sight, it may be necessary for some parts, eg grab bars, to be of a bright colour so as to enable those children to use the equipment safely. Advice of the Isle of Wight Council's Park Officer would be sought on this issue. Play area will also consist of sand pits and seating. The following list of points has been provided by the applicant (Newport Inner Play Area):

Use of part of Church Litten as a playground maintains the existing use of the area as a recreational space.

Footprint for proposed play area is on non consecrated area.

Site owned by Local Council to the benefit of the community in perpetuity.

To remain as open space.

Planned site for new CCTV camera.

Playground to exist without the assistance of Play Leaders, parental responsibility for supervision.

Fencing to prevent dog fouling and to assure a zone where children can play safely within a controlled area.

Liability and maintenance to be arranged and carried out by Local Council's Parks Department.

Overall appearance of the area to be as natural as possible and proposed scheme used as wooden play structures.

Play equipment for disabled and able bodied children to reach all children in the community.

Location of play area designed to serve both children living in Newport and children visiting Newport town centre with parents.

Full support granted by Portsmouth Diocese.

Play equipment selected to meet the needs of children of ages ranging from 0 - 14.

Close to amenities, i.e. toilets, refreshments, parking.

On a survey distributed to 3500 people in Newport area, 43% voted for Church Litten as the favoured site compared with 23% for the next most popular choice.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the introduction of the proposed play facility in this location will have a detrimental effect on the pleasant open character of Church Litten.

Relevant policies are considered to be S5 (which indicates that proposals for development which, bearing in mind all other policies, will be for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated), D1 (Standards of Design), B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) and L4 (Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments).

The principle of providing play equipment in Church Litten Park is supported by most objectors including Isle of Wight Gardens Trust. The issue under consideration is whether the overall size and design of proposed equipment is suitable for this pleasant green area which plays a valuable role in softening the impact of the built environment in this part of Newport. The beauty of Church Litten Park is its simple character with little equipment and paraphernalia which is normally associated with this type of use. The environment of this park is further enhanced by a variety of mature trees. Overall, I do not consider that adverse effects of the proposal as submitted can be ameliorated and therefore it does not comply with Policy S5.

Considerable effort has been made through discussions between the applicants, planning officers and the Isle of Wight Gardens Trust in order to resolve the conflict identified by the Gardens Trust (an important consultee) with Policy B10 of the UDP. Despite these discussions, the Gardens Trust is still advising that the proposal will adversely affect the Historic Park and therefore should not be permitted. Despite the considerable support for the proposal, I believe the Gardens Trust's objection is well founded in that the proposal, even in its reduced form, will provide a large enclosed recreational area comprising of substantial manmade equipment which is very much out of character with this pleasant and unspoilt park.

I fully appreciate the need for a facility of this nature in close proximity to Newport town centre but feel that this need does not outweigh the duty of the Local Planning Authority to protect the character of this part of Newport. This is not to say that the principle of providing some equipment is out of the question but that the scheme as proposed is considered unacceptable, despite the negotiations and discussions which have taken place to try to reduce its impact.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed play area would form an incongruous feature in Church Litten Park to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. I am therefore of the opinion that this facility is contrary to Policies S5, D1, L4 and B10 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

               Recommendation         -              Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

In respect of originally submitted application the following comments were received.

Bembridge Parish Council consider application to be inappropriate development of hotel complex, loss of hotel garden, loss of amenity of trees, loss of some car parking and inappropriate density of chalets. They further comment on the revised scheme:

"Approval recommended with a condition that the chalets are only used as holiday lets and not staff accommodation and not be used for more than four weeks consecutively and that this application be tied in with the hotel."

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions requiring parking provision should consent be granted.

Three letters have been received objecting to the proposal on grounds as follows:

Overlooking and consequent loss of privacy.

Exacerbation of flood problem.

Loss of off-street parking.

Increase in noise pollution and levels.

Inappropriate backland development.

A further letter has been received which, whilst raising no objection in principle, raises concern again on issues outlined above.

Following re-advertisement further letter of objection received. Grounds of objection are excessive infilling in back land/gardens, invasion of privacy from overlooking and resultant noise levels.

Evaluation

Application relates to land rear (south) of Windmill Hotel which itself is situated at junction of Lane End Road, Foreland Road and Steyne Road. Area currently comprises gravel parking area and amenity space to hotel complex together with private garden to adjoining property which lies within control of applicant.

Originally submitted application sought consent for two terraces of seven holiday units running north south to rear of hotel. Scheme would have resulted in removal of significant number of trees from this site and following negotiation with this office revised scheme has been submitted for determination.

Site has also been surveyed by Council's Tree and Landscape Officer and a Tree Preservation Order has been made in respect of four pine trees and a plane tree which occupy rear of site.

Revised scheme shows seven units to be repositioned which ensure retention of TPO'd trees whilst reducing overall footprint of each individual chalet unit.

Buildings would be predominantly single storey with roof accommodation and dormer windows facing into site. Each unit would comprise two bedrooms, living room, bathroom and kitchen. Revised scheme also allows for retention of part of existing parking area in providing twelve off-street parking spaces.

Site is unallocated for any specific purpose within the Unitary Development Plan but is located within development envelope boundary for Bembridge.

Given that site forms part of curtilage of hotel premises I do not consider there is any land use objection to tourist related development on this site subject to detailed considerations relating to impact on locality and neighbouring property.

Consequences for trees on site and parking matters.

Proposed chalet accommodation would be minimum distance of some 4 metres from adjoining residential boundaries and accommodation is so designed to ensure no overlooking from first floor dormer window accommodation.

Recently TPO'd trees have been retained on site and significant number of existing parking spaces are also shown to be retained. On latter issue, hotel operator advises that although there will be a reduction in spaces available to the hotel this will not have a significant effect on trading requirements as at present is unusual for whole parking area to become used and at peak times it is common for front of car park to be full whilst car park area to rear remains relatively free.

In view of the above comments I do not consider there is any planning objection to intensification of commercial/tourist use on this site which will have no undue adverse effects either on locality or surrounding residential occupiers in particular.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations as included in the Evaluation section above the development of tourist accommodation in this location is consistent with Policies D1, T2 and T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and accordingly approval is recommended.

               Recommendation - Approval (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend approval.

One letter of objection from nearby resident, points summarised as follows:

Proposal is too large for a residential car port.

Alleged change of use taking place on site.

Inappropriate form of development within the curtilage of a Listed Building.

Visual intrusion.

Local Member was requested to consider this application for approval under delegated powers, but has requested that it is determined by the Committee.

Evaluation

Application site is on the western side of Newport Road, the dwelling (Listed Grade II) being approximately 25 metres north of the junction of Church Street and the High Street. The main house is located within a triangular shaped curtilage, extending out to form a square shaped plot, which is where the proposal is to be located.

Application seeks consent for the formation of a covered area in front of an existing group of outbuildings located on the western side of the overall curtilage. Dimensions of the structure being 15 metres by 5.9 metres by 4 metres and supported by five vertical RSJ's. No walls are proposed, and the monopitch roof is to be finished in green mineral felt.

Main considerations are Development Plan policy and the effect that the proposed development will have on the character of the area in general and the setting of a Listed Building.

Relevant policies are considered to be D1 and B2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policy D1 relates to Standards of Design and states that development will only be permitted where it maintains or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and be sympathetic in scale, materials and siting. Development should not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. Policy B2 relates to the Settings of Listed Buildings and states that proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted.

The proposed use of the development has been queried, it has been confirmed by the agent that this development will be used ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.

In terms of the effect on the setting of a Listed Building, I am of the opinion that the development is set back a significant distance from the dwelling some 40 metres, so that the character of the building is not affected. The dwelling itself does provide an adequate screen from the road so that the proposed will not be readily visible.

Whilst I appreciate that there are elements of the curtilage of this site that are untidy, the provision of a covered area would improve the visual appearance of the existing outbuildings.

Given the open nature of the proposed development, I am of the opinion that it is a significant distance away from adjoining properties for the impact to be minimised and a condition can be imposed regarding use. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed covered area to the existing outbuildings is suitable in this location.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highways Engineer does not wish to comment as there are no highway implications arising from the proposal.

Principal Planning Officer (Policy) advises principal UDP policy is E8 and drawings will be needed to satisfy issues relating to "scale and design." He is concerned that the original proposal for a major development at the site may be achieved in increments.

Island Watch object as this is an enormous building and greatly extends the development in a rural area.

Evaluation

Members may recall that on 15 February 2000, the then Planning and Countryside Committee resolved to approve a building of some 2400 square metres sited immediately north of the former farm buildings at Turnpike Farm. This decision was contrary to Officer recommendation, and because the proposal constituted a major development which was a departure from both the statutory Development Plan and the then Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. It was therefore necessary to refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who advised by letter dated 7 March 2000 that because of possible implications for national planning guidance in PPG7, PPG6 and PPG13, issues were raised of more than local importance and that he ought to decide the application himself.

Ultimately, however, the application was withdrawn in favour of a proposal to refurbish the existing farm buildings, following a decision of the former Planning Committee on 9 May 2000 to remove a condition on a previous planning permission which allowed commercial use of the former farm buildings, to enable the use of those buildings as a design office and customer call centre. Following that decision, the buildings have been refurbished and the commercial operation is well established at the site.

The current proposal seeks outline consent for the development of a building of some 800 square metres located to the west, but in the curtilage of, the existing buildings. The application is in outline, with all matters except siting reserved for future approval. The new building would house the design archive for the company, which the agent advises is a vital component if the company is to keep track of rapidly changing and recurring fashion themes and thus maintain its established lead in this field. Four "curators" would be employed to run the archive.

PPG's7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development) and 13 (Transport) are relevant, together with UDP policies S4, S5, S11, E6, E8, C1 and TR3 will also be particularly relevant.

E6 relates to the expansion of existing industry and offices and indicates that planning applications for this type of development will be approved, unless an intensification or extension of an existing non-conforming use with unacceptable impact is involved, or the use is inappropriate in its existing location and it is not possible to overcome identified problems. Such development is particularly to be encouraged where it will lead to additional job opportunities.

In this particular case, the use is clearly appropriate in the locality in that the Council as recently as 2000 indicated its acceptance of the use through the removal of a previously restrictive condition on the main buildings. New job opportunities are however limited to the creation of four new posts as a result of the development now proposed.

E8 specifically refers to employment provision in the countryside. Applications for employment related development on land outside the development envelope boundaries will be approved where the proposal is of benefit to the rural economy, is of a scale and design appropriate for the location and, inter alia, allows the expansion of firms which could not be expected to relocate.

Clearly having recently established at this site, it would not be reasonable to expect the firm to relocate in order to provide the additional floor space required at the moment, and therefore it needs to be shown that, if the policy is to be complied with, the proposed development is of a scale and design appropriate for the location.

Although in outline, the applicants have been asked to provide illustrative drawings, which show how a building no higher than, and of similar nature and finish to those already existing on the site, could be accommodated. This would require the removal of a group of lime, poplar and willow trees, which form part of the screening of the buildings from the west. The applicants agent considers that these trees serve no purpose in the screening of the existing building but, do make a contribution to the rural character of the area, particularly in longer views. The western boundary of the site does contain a significant number of trees and an amount of hedgerow; some of the trees lean inwards towards the site and would need to be pruned if the building, even single storey, were to go ahead. The applicants agent makes the point that the main trunks would not be affected and there would be ample space for the planting of new trees between them. Applicants agent anticipates that building would be single storey although with asymmetric roof which may allow, should space dictate, that a mezzanine floor could be added without effect on external appearance.

With suitable cladding to match that of the refurbished buildings, I consider that the illustrative drawings show that a building of suitable scale and design could be provided, if outline approval were granted. Additional screen planting would be required on the western boundary and also in the area of additional employees parking, which is proposed to the north of the proposed building and west of the existing. Any future applications for additional floor space would need to be dealt with on their merits, in the context particularly of policies S5, E8 and C1.

Policy C1 seeks to protect landscape character and requires that applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape and should be for the benefit of the rural economy. I consider that with appropriate landscaping as described above, the scale of the development proposed would be appropriate for this location, bearing in mind the existing buildings adjoining, with appropriate species and locations of landscape would take account of the landscape character of the area and would, through the contribution to the established company operating from the site, be of benefit to the rural economy.

Policy TR3 reflects the guidance of PPG13 and accepts in principle developments which minimise the need to travel, especially by car. New developments which create significant travel demand should therefore be located within existing defined settlements which are easily accessible by public transport, bicycle and on foot. This site is not within, or even adjoining, an existing settlement but does have the benefit of existing use, which has been accepted by the Planning Authority through its decision in May 2000 to remove a restrictive condition. Therefore, approval of this application is likely to lead to some increase in traffic generation although this could be increased if the use of the building for purposes other than as a design archive were to occur. I would suggest therefore, if the application is approved, a condition should be imposed restricting the use of the building to use as a design archive in connection with the adjoining design office and customer call centre.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I consider that the development proposed is in accordance with policies E6, E8 and C1 of the Isle of Wight Council Unitary Development Plan and that, with appropriate conditions, will not significantly compromise the aims of policy TR3.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Ventnor Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be granted in respect of proposal.

Highway Engineer recommends condition should application be approved.

Environmental Health Officer recommends condition in respect of potential ground contamination should application be approved.

Coastal Manager is satisfied that an adequate examination of the site has been made and that proper consideration has been given to the geotechnical aspect. He advises that a major underground stream passes beneath the site before running down Pier Street to the Cascade and that we need to be aware that the predicted impact of climate change includes an increase in winter rainfall over the next eighty years in excess of 20%. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that this increase will not cause problems for the site in the future.

Principal Building Control Surveyor advises that planning guidance maps indicate that the site is in an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development. He considers that this is almost certainly due to the fact that the site is located on a relic/active stream bed and as such alluvial deposits such as peat are likely to be found. He advises that the supermarket in Pier Street suffered structural damage and remedial works were carried out consisting of piled foundations to extend through the soft ground. In the case of the current proposal, no such deposits were identified in the trial pits which indicated that the site is generally covered by broken chalk. However, he considers that it may well be that the softer soils may be encountered below the level of the trial pit investigation. He also considers that it is essential that the course of the underground stream which is known to pass under this site is accurately plotted and investigated further and details should be provided indicating how this will be dealt with through the site. He is unaware as to who legally controls this stream and whether any permits are required to build over it. Having regard to these comments, he requested further information which should include deeper sub-surface investigations such as bore holes and advised that the stability of the existing boundary walls should also be investigated further and should not rely on support from the new buildings. He also expressed concern that access for Fire Brigade may be inadequate.

Following submission of additional information by applicant's engineer and consultations with the Coastal Manager, Principal Building Control Surveyor has given this matter further consideration. He advises that further investigations will still be required to determine the most suitable foundation design for this development. However, he does not consider that the development will adversely affect the existing stability of the area and is satisfied that the foundation design can be dealt with under the Building Regulations. He also indicates that he has been informed that the underground stream is piped through the site and will not be affected by the development. Therefore, he does not now consider that it is essential for further investigations to be carried out at this stage. However, he considers that the Coastal Manager should be consulted to ensure that he is now satisfied that the stream culvert will be adequate, taking account of proposed climate change.

County Archaeological Officer advises that cremation urns and coins of Roman date have been found in the vicinity of the proposed development site. Therefore, in order that archaeological features may be adequately recorded, she recommends condition, should application be approved, to ensure that developers shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological and Environment Service to enable them to observe groundwork and to record items and features of archaeological significance.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service initially considered proposal to be unsatisfactory on grounds that plans did not clearly identify emergency vehicle access and that access for a fire appliance within 45 metres of the front door of any unit could not be achieved. This issue has been the subject of negotiations between the applicant's agent and the Fire and Rescue Service and, following an exercise where a fire appliance was taken to the site, it has been established that required distance could be achieved with appliances standing in Marlborough Road. Fire and Rescue Service has subsequently confirmed that proposal is considered to be satisfactory.

Architects Panel have considered the proposal and made the following comments:

The Panel considered that the single dwelling located in the south west corner of the site should either be eliminated or constructed as part of the terrace of five houses running along the north boundary. They considered that on its own it did nothing to contribute to the layout of the site.

They noted that windows were of Georgian style and considered that these should be constructed in timber, given that site is located within the Ventnor Conservation Area.

The Panel considered that the roof shapes to the rear elevation of plots 3-6 could be looked at in more detail and should reflect more the shapes to the front elevation.

Two letters have been received, one from owner of the Marlborough Road Meeting Hall and one from a user of the facility objecting to proposal on grounds that development will overshadow windows in the side of the building resulting in loss of light and will cause noise and disturbance.

Letter received from local resident who comments that proposal does not appear to impinge greatly on Marlborough Road, but expresses concern regarding lack of car parking which will lead to greater use of Grove Road car park. They also comment that Marlborough Road is a 'rat run' for drivers wishing to avoid the traffic lights on Church Road causing disturbance which would be exacerbated by proposal. They suggest that traffic calming should be installed or limits imposed on use of car park.

Evaluation

Application relates to former Ventnor Laundry site located to rear of properties fronting north western side of High Street and Church Street with frontage onto Marlborough Road. Site is accessed from High Street through access which runs under arched first floor element to commercial premises. There is presently no direct access to site from Marlborough Road which is at higher level. Site is occupied by substantial commercial buildings with significant ground coverage. Roof of these buildings has been removed and some demolition work commenced.

Outline planning permission was granted in April 1989 for sixteen units of sheltered housing with warden and communal facilities.

Application seeks full planning permission for twelve dwellings. Original proposal involved construction of three pairs of semi-detached houses (one pair on eastern side of site and two pairs along southern boundary linked by first floor element), one detached house adjacent western boundary and a terrace of five dwellings along northern boundary fronting Marlborough Road. In response to comments of Architects' Panel and following negotiations with applicant's agent, revised plans were submitted showing detached unit attached to terrace running along Marlborough Road frontage creating an 'L' shaped block.

Dwellings on east, south and west side of site would be two storey with those fronting Marlborough Road being three storey, although due to changes in level, only upper two floors would project above level of road. Properties would be arranged around central courtyard and would provide a mix of two and three bedroom accommodation. Access from courtyard to Marlborough Road would be provided by flight of steps at eastern end of terrace of dwellings. Properties on eastern and southern side of site would have small gardens or courtyard areas to rear, whilst those on north and west side of site would have small areas outside each dwelling fronting central courtyard delineated by decorative wrought iron railings.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development is appropriate in terms of layout and number of units and whether proposal would detract from character of area which is designated as a Conservation Area or amenities of adjacent occupiers.

Site is located within the settlement of Ventnor as defined by the development envelope on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is allocated as a housing development site. Site is also shown to be within the designated Conservation Area for Ventnor. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brown field) sites, rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 units over the plan period.

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.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage.

H8 - High Density Residential Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing sets out Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimizing the amount of green field land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings. In terms of making best use of land, Guidance Note advises that Local Planning Authorities should consider range of measures, including seeking greater intensity of development and places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors. Current proposal clearly involves development of a brown field site and is considered to be consistent with the aims of Policy S2 of the Unitary Development Plan and provisions of PPG3.

Having regard to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 in respect of brown field sites and location of application site within the defined settlement of Ventnor immediately adjacent the town centre, I consider that development should be encouraged which makes most efficient use of the site. This will clearly involve high density development, but should not be at the expense of good design, particularly having regard to the location of the site within the designated Conservation Area, or the amenities of future occupants of the dwellings. In the case of the current application, I consider that the density proposed is compatible with existing development in the area which includes two and three storey semi-detached and terrace dwellings and is therefore acceptable in this instance. Furthermore, I consider that the design and layout of the dwellings around a central courtyard would provide an attractive environment for future occupants and proposed development incorporates good quality urban design, creating a sense of place.

In addition, I consider the design, scale, mass and general appearance of the dwellings are appropriate reflecting the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and will not detract from the character and amenities of the locality.

With regard to concerns expressed by local residents in respect of lack of car parking, I would advise Members that site is located within Parking Zone 3 where the level of parking required for new development would equate to 0% to 75% of the maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision allowed for the site. In this instance, having regard to location of site with easy access to facilities of the town centre and public transport, I consider that the development of the site for residential purposes without providing any off street parking facilities is acceptable and would accord with the aims of the policies of the Unitary Development Plan which seek to reduce dependency on the private car and reduce parking requirements to an operational minimum. Furthermore, it should be noted that site is within relatively close proximity to public car park which can be accessed along Marlborough Road. In accordance with the Council's parking guidelines, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to require developers to make a commuted payment towards transport infrastructure. Such payments can be used to improve facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport and such payments will be based on the amount of new floor space being created or number of dwellings involved in the case of residential development. However, this requirement applies to development proposals within Zones 1 and 2 only. Therefore, I do not consider that it is appropriate to require a commuted payment in respect of transport infrastructure in this instance.

Engineers acting on behalf of applicants have provided additional information in support of the application and in particular details of the underground stream which runs through application site, including a plan showing its route which indicates that it will not be directly affected by the proposed development. The Engineer advises that the source of the underground stream referred to by both the Coastal Manager and Principal Building Control Surveyor is a spring in a cave in the gardens of Waters Edge, The Grove which is situated approximately 120 metres to west of application site. I am advised that the stream is piped from its source through the site and that a separate spring in the laundry site is connected into the pipe. This pipe is shown on the Southern Water sewer record as a surface water sewer, part of the public system and where it runs through the application site is shown to have a diameter of 225 mm. Applicant's engineer advises that in 1994 he carried out an investigation of the sewers in Ventnor for Southern Water, the main objective of which was to identify major sources of clean water infiltration to the combined sewers of which this stream was one of the largest. The investigation showed an error on the sewer records and the pipe in question actually runs through the arched entrance to the laundry site and is connected into the combined sewer in the High Street. This was proven by use of dye. Furthermore, I am advised that approximately 40% of the pipe was full of silt at the site entrance.

As far as the Engineer is aware, there is no record of flooding from the stream and he expresses the view that since it is spring fed, the flow rate will not be affected directly by rainfall. However, he would expect there to be seasonal fluctuations in the flow rate with the highest flows at the end of the winter and if annual rainfall increases for any reason, the peak flow rate may increase. Notwithstanding these comments, he does not consider it possible to relate the increase in flow to an increase in rainfall, as the relationship will depend on a number of factors, including ground water condition. He advises that the clearing of the silt from the pipe will lead to a significant increase in the capacity of the pipe in excess of the 20% increase in rainfall suggested by the Coastal Manager. In any event, I would point out that the entire site presently is covered with an impermeable material, ie concrete and I do not consider that the development would result in a significant increase, if any, in surface water run-off.

Meeting hall referred to by objectors is located adjacent north eastern corner of site and is accessed from Marlborough Road. Building has a number of windows in the side (west) elevation and two windows in the rear (south) elevation. Flight of steps runs down to lower level of building from Marlborough Road between the meeting hall and existing cottages within the application site which immediately abut the boundary. Proposal involves demolition of these cottages and new buildings would be located approximately one to 1.5 metres further away from boundary. Therefore, it is likely that there would be an increase in the level of light to the windows in the side elevation of the meeting hall. Windows in the rear elevation of the meeting hall have sill level of approximately 7 metres above the application site.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, having regard to location of site immediately adjacent town centre within an area characterised by mix of development, including relatively high density traditional Victorian housing, proposal represents an appropriate form of development. Furthermore, I am satisfied that development is of an appropriate design, scale, mass and subject of use of appropriate materials in construction of dwellings, will make a positive contribution to the area and will not detract from character of locality. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

1.        Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

2.    Recommendation             -          That a memorandum is sent to Head of Highways and Transportation advising him of concerns expressed by local resident that Marlborough road is used as a 'rat run' and that traffic calming should be installed on this road.

Representations

Totland Parish Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineer's initial comments are summarised as follows:

He considers that the S-bend proposed is unacceptable in geometry and level terms and that further information is required indicating levels and showing a longitudinal section demonstrating how an access with acceptable gradients (1:10 for carriageway and 1:14 for footpaths) can be achieved.

Existing gradient adjacent to Plot 9 is too steep.

The access design is long, reference to 60 metres plus, and will lead to speeds higher than necessary for shared surface designed roads.

Recognises that there are some constraints on the road layout caused by the need to ensure future access into land to the east is achieved, it may be a more radical approach is necessary in order to ensure a suitable geometry in terms of the road layout.

Final point of concern is the lack of drainage information and this would need to be thoroughly researched.

Council's Contaminated Land Officer notes that the original outline planning consent relied entirely on the condition suggested by the Environment Agency covering contaminated land issues. He considers a second condition should apply relating to dangers to human health or the previous condition be added to, to include this matter.

Council's Tree and Landscape Officer comments as follows:

".... I believe that the revised road layout near Plots 13 and 14 and T2/T3 would meet my previous concerns provided the levels do not change within the crown spreads of the trees.

I am still concerned about the impact of the driveway on T4 as the drive would still be within the crown of this tree.

I am also concerned that changes in levels generally may have a damaging effect on tree roots and I advise that detailed levels and cross-sections, proposed and existing, are provided so we are able to assess their impact.

Proposed new planting

The proposed new planting will be sensible and attractive and I advise it is approved."

Application has been the subject of two letters of objection and comment, one from resident of Amos Hill and the other from a resident of the Mall. Points raised are summarised as follows:

The resident of the Mall is concerned that this proposal will increase road traffic using the Mall, an unadopted road which local residents have tried to maintain in a good state of repair. Further traffic using the road will further damage the surface.

Adjoining resident in Amos Hill is concerned at the impact that this development may have on a retaining wall which forms his northern boundary. He has listed a number of assurances which he requires from the developer.

Evaluation

Most Members will be aware of this site which is the former Readers factory located behind a number of residential properties on the south side of The Avenue and to which access is obtained off Amos Hill. Apart from the former commercial use of this site the area is almost entirely characterised by residential development covering a range of housing units.

The site is L-shaped with levels reflecting the general fall from south to north. Southern boundary of the site is defined by a retaining wall behind a range of single storey buildings rising up at the eastern end to two storeys. Beyond the eastern boundary which is defined by a post and wire fence are a number of trees whose canopies extend over into the application site. The site itself has recently been the subject of extensive demolition work with all former industrial buildings being removed. Members are also advised that footpath FP5 commences off The Avenue in a southerly direction up Amos Hill past the site and continues through to Summers Lane further to the south.

The only relevant history relates to a conditional outline consent for demolition of existing buildings and outline for houses granted in September 2001. That consent reserved all matters for future approval.

Current application is the next stage of the above-mentioned outline consent being an approval of reserved matter application covering siting, design and external appearance, means of access and landscaping, and it is only these matters which require determination.

Reserved matter consent is sought for a total of 14 units scheduled as follows:

Plots 1 and 2 - a pair of semi-detached four bedroom integral garage units located fronting Amos Hill, south of proposed access road.

Plots 3 - 8 inclusive - 6 three bedroom split level semi-detached dwellings located adjacent southern boundary of the site having north facing three storey elevation with garage at ground level reducing to two storey in height along its southern elevation.

Plots 9 - 12 - 2 three bedroom and 2 four bedroom two storey dwellings with two of the units having attached garaging with accommodation over. Units staggered and located having an east west aspect being to the east of the rear boundaries of property 3 Amos Hill and development known as Needle makers.

Plots 13 and 14 - pair of three bedroom semi detached houses having north south aspect being to the south of the rear boundary of properties 33, 35, 37 and 39 The Avenue.

Parking provision - ten of the units have integral garage provision with additional parking spaces within the individual curtilages to the front of those garages. Remaining four units have individual car parking spaces, the whole resulting in a total of 24 spaces for the dwellings themselves plus some casual car parking provision within the southern half of the site.

Access - access to the site has been subject of negotiation resulting in a cul-de-sac access off Amos Hill with the access point being adjacent number 3 Amos Hill, almost opposite the junction of Amos Hill with The Mall. Proposed access varies in width from 4.8 metres at the junction to narrowing to 4.2 metres within the site and provided with an informal turning area within the north eastern area of the site. The road has been widened opposite Units 3 - 6 to afford turning facilities.

Design and external appearance - dwellings to be constructed in facing brick under concrete tiled roof with ten of the dwellings being in a red stock brick with the remainder being in a buff brick. Units 3 - 8 inclusive include an element of render at first floor level.

Landscaping - application has been accompanied by an extensive landscaping scheme indicating a mixture of new tree and shrub planting mainly within the "front garden" areas of the houses and abutting the proposed access. Application has also been accompanied by an arboricultural report in respect of existing trees which, although not located on the site, overhang the site adjacent the eastern boundary. Also, trees referred to abutting the western boundary. Trees abutting the eastern boundary have been the subject of negotiation resulting in the construction of retaining walls encompassing the crown edge of the trees ensuring retention of existing ground levels.

Assessment of the merits of this application must relate to the outline consent with the indicative plan which accompanied that application also indicating 14 units. In essence this proposal follows quite closely that indicative plan in terms of arrangement of dwellings. Density of the proposal is 35 units per hectare being within the 30 - 50 dwellings per hectare density set in PPG3 and therefore there is no affordable housing implication albeit that 14 units is one below the 15 unit threshold.

Proposal does provide a mix of three and four bedroom units which, given the character of the area, is not unacceptable in this instance. In this regard density and arrangement of dwellings makes best use of this site, particularly given the awkwardness of the topography (steep gradient in one area) and shape of the site. Dwellings have been appropriately grouped facing the access which serves them, providing that sense of community and security encouraged by the Crime Prevention Officers.

Design of dwellings is considered appropriate with particular reference to use of good quality materials. In ground coverage terms proposal is considerably less than the former factory buildings and its development for residential purposes will clearly be wholly compatible resulting in an area which would now be entirely residential.

I note the concerns of one resident relating to the generation of traffic, whilst I do not have exact information relating to level of traffic generated by the previous use it is extremely unlikely that this residential proposal would generate any more traffic, if anything, it is likely to be less. The access itself has been designed using the principles of Design Bulletin 32 being fairly informal. Road itself has retained the possibility of extending into land to the east should the opportunity to develop that land ever be forthcoming. Gradient of the roads has been adjusted to accord with guidelines with the result that floor levels have also had to be adjusted. I understand that the Highway Engineer is now satisfied with the geometry.

With regard to effect on adjoining trees, again this has been satisfactorily resolved by alterations to the previous alignment of the road and more importantly the construction of retaining walls. Again, the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer is in agreement with these proposals. I would also concur that the quality of the landscaping proposals is extremely high and will, when mature, make a major contribution to this development.

Applicants have submitted cross sections relating mass and scale with adjoining properties to the south and north. I am satisfied that the buildings, particularly Plots 1 - 8, will sit satisfactorily within the topography of the area with the applicant making use of the levels, particularly in terms of Plots 3 - 8 which are split level in nature.

Other issues have also been addressed relating to drainage, contamination and retaining walls.

In terms of surface water drainage, the previous use of the site resulted in substantial area being covered in buildings and hard surfaces. The present application considerably reduces this area and accordingly the surface water situation should improve producing less run off than before. In any event, although highway drainage would need to go to the existing main piped system, ground condition tests suggests that the house drainage could well go to soakaway, a surface water system which the Environment Agency is encouraging.

It had been assumed that the residential development of this site would result in increased foul drainage and therefore the ability of the existing foul drainage system to accept this level of drainage was questioned. I now understand that the comparison between the two suggests that foul drainage from this proposal will be substantially less than that generated by the former factory use and again, this would suggest that foul drainage does not create a problem.

Some trial holes have been taken to test for contamination which at this stage suggests the site is relatively clean. There is one area of the site which still requires further testing. In any event, if Members are mindful to approve I suggest appropriate conditions.

Some additional information has been received in respect of the major retaining wall on the site being along the southern boundary with a structural engineer making the following points:

A section of approximately 10 metres in length appearing to have been repaired in the past suggesting some weakness and a crack was apparent on the face in this location. Engineer is suggesting that a series of buttresses against the wall from within their development be constructed in order to prolong the retaining wall's performance and to safeguard neighbouring properties. Finally, engineer observed that the foundations of the wall have been exposed following the demolition work and this would require attention.

Members are also advised that the same engineer will be looking at other boundary retaining wall and report accordingly. In this regard Members attention is drawn to the Party Wall Act which is separate from Planning legislation and provides a framework for resolving the resultant disputes in relation to boundary walls. The Act requires that anyone proposing to carry out works must give adjoining owners notice of their intention. When applied to the current application certainly Plot 2 is within the specified distance and therefore the developer would require to carry out that procedure. I suggest if Members are mindful to approve the application an advisory letter be sent accordingly.

Finally, although not included in any letter of comment or objection I understand there has been some doubt as to whether or not that part of Amos Hill which is adopted extends as far as the proposed access to this development. I have been advised by the Highway Engineer that the access to this development does abut the area of Amos Hill which is within the adopted highway.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I consider this reserved matter application has fully addressed the relevant matters described in a satisfactory manner and that the development will represent an enhancement of the area compatible with the overall residential character which prevails. I therefore recommend accordingly.

1.    Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans).

Conditions/Reasons:

2. Recommendation -  Letter be sent to applicant advising of possible obligations in respect of the Party Wall Act 1996 where adjoining owners should be given notice of any works relating to boundaries.

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Environmental Health raise no objections.

Environment Agency raise no objection in principle but advises applicant regarding flood proofing measures.

One letter of objection from two properties on grounds of loss of retail and subsequent effect on existing retail premises.

Evaluation

The application relates to a property sited within the Ryde Conservation Area approximately 20 metres south of the junction where Monkton Street meets The Strand. Permission is sought for the change of use of the ground floor from a shop to a flat. There are a mix of uses in the area including residential to the north and a cafe to the south. The application site is a three storey property with vacant retail unit at ground floor formerly used as hairdressers and residential above. Accommodation to be provided is a living room, bedroom, kitchen, hall, lobby/utility, bathroom, conservatory and the access will be off Monkton Street. There is a small communal area at the rear of the property for drying area, bin area and rear pedestrian access. Changes to the front elevation are minimal, a new front entrance is proposed, double glazed windows and new rendered wall to enclose the forecourt.

Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. In particular the development shall provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to development and adjoining uses; should not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings; or adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) states that the Council will take into account the potential for conflict between existing, adjoining or surrounding development and activities.

The proposal is within a Conservation Area and in an area with retail units supporting the local community, but is not sited within any town centre boundary and in principle there is no policy objection to the change of use.

Determining factors in considering the application therefore are whether there is any potential conflict of uses in the surrounding area and whether the proposal provides adequate accommodation.

This is a vacant shop which can easily be converted to residential in a mixed use area. In terms of potential conflict, the Environmental Health Officer confirms that as there is already residential development in the vicinity, he would not object to proposed use as any potential conflict would be dealt with under Environmental Health legislation. The accommodation proposed is to an acceptable standard, providing housing need.

Regarding concerns relating to loss of retail, it should be noted that in policy terms there is no sustainable reason to withhold consent.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the application represents an appropriate use of the building and recommend accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

Initial proposal for a pair of three bedroomed semi-detached houses attracted a total of eight letters of objection and comment from local residents. Four from Cavendish Place, three from Caesars Road and one from Clifford Street.

Following readvertisement of the application for a semi-detached pair of two bedroomed dwellings showing amended designs, three letters of objection were received, two from residents of Caesars Road and one from a resident of Clifford Street.

Initial application was also subject of a fifteen signature petition with a number of the signatories also sending in individual letters. Subject matter of the petition is summarised as follows:

Development of excessive density.

Noise and disturbance caused by construction traffic.

How would general service vehicles and emergency vehicles be able to access the site.

Effect on views and outlook in respect of adjoining dwellings.

Dwellings will be over dominant causing loss of light to nearby buildings.

Concern that drainage from the houses will involve a pump thus resulting in a noise nuisance.

Reference made to wildlife habitat which would be affected by development.

Concern that proposal provides zero parking which could result in pressures on on-street parking which is already at full capacity.

All the above comments are contained within the individual letters however, the following additional points are also raised:

Insufficient garden area to serve family homes (this comment related to the initial proposal for three bedroomed houses).

Cavendish Place/Clifford Street regularly used by parents delivering and collecting children attending Westmont School and the recent child play facility in Drill Hall Road.

One writer refers to her daughter having a health condition involving a sleep regime which would be disturbed by building works.

Contents of the additional letters following the readvertisement reiterate the above points, placing strong emphasis on loss of light to garden areas and properties which front Caesars Road to the north west.

One writer appears to refer to a possible previous outline planning consent however, my records do not indicate such a consent exists.

Environment Agency make no specific comment but advise the use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) within the development. Environment Agency also refers to potential flooding in the vicinity of the site and suggests the applicant should carry out local investigations to determine the extent of flooding and set floor levels accordingly.

Evaluation

Application relates to irregular shaped area of land situated between the rear of properties which front Caesars Road (numbers 49, 51 and 53) and rear of properties which front Clifford Street (numbers 17 - 22 consecutively). Area is characterised by traditional Victorian terraced dwellings apart from a recently constructed pair of semi-detached dwellings located to the south west of the site. Site is within the same ownership as 22 Clifford Street although appears separate from that dwelling. Both Clifford Street and Cavendish Place are dead-end roads and attract a high level of on-street parking.

Site itself is generally level but does slope towards the north west towards the rear boundaries of the properties which front Caesars Road. (North western boundaries). Apart from groups of boundary trees the site has no specific landscape features apart from an artificial pond.

Detailed consent is sought for the construction of a pair of semi-detached dwellings of asymmetric design both providing two bedroom accommodation. One of the dwellings has a chalet design appearance with the remainder having a traditional two storey house appearance. Pair of dwellings to be constructed in facing brick under a concrete tiled roof and sit centrally on the site having a south west/north east aspect with front elevation facing south westwards. Submitted plan indicates retention of perimeter trees and the erection of a new 1.8 metre high panelled fence along the north western boundary. Drainage will be via a subterranean pump with rising main to existing sewer adjacent Clifford Street. Proposal provides for zero parking but does provide pedestrian access off the north western end of Cavendish Place.

Proposed dwelling has in the main windows facing south west and north east and there are no first floor windows facing north westwards towards the rear of properties which front Caesars Road. In terms of distances proposed dwelling is set minimum 4.5 metres off the north western boundary to maximum of 5.3 metres.

UDP policies which apply are listed below:

Policy H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

Policy D1 - Standards of Design.

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines with particular reference to zonal parking policies.

Policy U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

Policy D3 - Landscaping.

Issues to be considered are summarised as follows:

Appropriateness of the size of site and its location for residential development.

Appropriateness of mass, scale and type of dwellings with reference to accommodation.

Appropriate site for zero parking.

Environmental impact issues.

I am satisfied that overall area of the site is capable of accommodating residential development of the type now proposed with a pair of semi-detached properties relating well to the recently constructed pair of semi-detached properties to the south west. Land area and particularly width of plot are similar to the site opposite. I therefore consider that this is an appropriate brown field site capable of accommodating this level of residential development in an urban area.

Regard to the second issue, Members will note that the applicant has revised the scheme which has resulted in a reduced size, scale and mass of semi-detached dwellings with reduced accommodation which I consider sits more comfortably on the site, providing an improved relationship with adjoining properties and their garden areas. Also the level of accommodation being two-bedroomed units accords with the recognised need identified in the recent Housing Needs Survey.

With regard to the third issue, Members will note that proposal provides zero parking mainly on the basis that there is no vehicular access provision directly on to Cavendish Place from this site. Pedestrian access can be achieved relatively easily therefore the main consideration is whether or not the site is appropriate for development without parking facilities. Site itself is within Zone 2 in terms of the Zonal Parking Policy being located out of town centre in respect of Newport. In this regard the site complies with the various characteristics in terms of parking which allows 0 - 50% of guidelines to be complied with. The main policy statement in respect of such a zone is as follows:

"If development without off-street parking takes place in this zone the existing parking constraints means that increased congestion is unlikely to be caused."

Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposal and has made no comment relating to the zero parking proposal. The reduced accommodation in respect of the dwellings will reduce the likelihood of substantial car ownership in respect of the properties and in any event any purchaser of the properties would be purchasing on the basis that there is no provision for on-site parking.

Points raised in third party representations are addressed as follows.

Access to the site by construction vehicles and a methodology of construction are essentially matters for the applicant to resolve. He will have right of access over adopted highways but obviously could not use any private vehicular access without the consent of neighbouring owners. Members will also be aware that Planning Authorities cannot control routes of construction traffic by condition however, if Members are mindful to approve the application I suggest a letter be sent advising site management be carefully considered to avoid disruption within the vicinity of the site. Disturbance to immediate neighbouring property owners caused by building works is unfortunately inevitable and such disturbance cannot be used as a reason for refusal.

Access by service vehicles and particularly emergency vehicles to houses is well within recognised distances from public highways to enable these vehicles to service the site. However, with regard to bin collection I would suggest a condition requiring a purpose built bin storage area close to the highway to ease this problem.

With regard to the specific impact of the proposed dwellings on existing properties to the north west which front Caesars Road, whilst I recognise the concerns being expressed I am of the view that the distances involved are more than adequate to ensure that any loss of light does not occur and certainly the distances are such that there would not be a sustainable reason to refuse.

Applicants have indicated a small subterranean pump within an inspection chamber to take the foul drainage via a rising main to an existing sewer in Clifford Street. This pump will be the responsibility of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings and because of its location underground any noise from that source is extremely unlikely to cause undue disturbance.

Suggestion by local residents that site contains wildlife habitat has now been investigated by the Council's Assistant Ecology Officer who comments as follows:

The man made pond on site would provide suitable habitat for dragonflies, frogs and toads.

No tadpoles were visible in the pond with the site being covered in long grass being an overgrown garden and as such is likely to be suitable habitat for grass-snakes, slow-worms and hedgehogs.

Grass-snakes and slow-worms are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against killing or injury.

If approval is granted it should be subject to condition requiring applicant to commission an investigation by competent person to ensure these two species are removed to another suitable habitat.

Ecology Officer recommends that as part of a landscaping scheme suitable species are planted to attract butterflies.

Finally, reference is made to the existing conifer (Leylandii) hedge which applicant does intend to retain however, it is suggested that this should be removed and, in the long term interest replaced with beech hedging.

I would concur with the comments above and if Members are mindful to approve I suggest appropriate conditions.

I have spoken to the applicant who has been in touch with the Environment Agency with additional information relating to the levels of the site and their relationship to the nearest watercourse. The result of this information I understand is that the site stands sufficiently high above the watercourse to not present a potential flooding problem.

Objectors consider that this proposal represents an overdevelopment and town cramming. However, I cannot agree with these statements for the reasons detailed above. Members attention is drawn to PPG3 - Housing March 2000 which strongly advises Planning Authorities to ensure efficient use of urban land with particular reference to brown field sites. Two units as proposed site comfortably on this site with space about and represent a rounding off of development when related to the two units to the recently constructed to the south west. I also consider that the type of dwellings being proposed accords with the results of the Housing Needs Survey which has identified a shortfall in two bedroomed units in terms of the housing stock.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider this proposal is acceptable in its revised form for the reasons detailed above and therefore I recommend accordingly subject to appropriate conditions.

           1.Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

   2.Recommendation - A letter be sent to applicants advising that in view of the possibility of the site containing grass-snakes and slow-worms which are protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 he should employ a competent person to carry out an appropriate investigation, and if present, to clear the site of these reptiles for removal to another suitable habitat with such works being carried out in consultation with the Council's Ecology Officer and English Nature, and,

A request for the developer to give careful consideration to management of construction traffic both visiting and leaving the site with particular reference to local school start and finish times.

Representations

No Highway Engineer comment as existing access.

Brading Town Council object for the following reasons:

Development which is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is not in character with the area and represents overdevelopment of the property.

The 2.2 metre boundary wall already constructed in brick is an over-dominant feature of the building.

The development could set a precedent for buildings of a similar nature in Adgestone.

One letter of objection on the following grounds:

Number of permanent brick built structures not in keeping with area. Planning permission for similar developments on neighbouring properties have been granted in timber construction only.

Proposed summer chalet and existing shed on land not registered to application site.

Incorrect description of proposal.

Evaluation

Application relates to semi-detached property and has been generated as a result of enforcement investigation. The property has a mix of materials, part timber cladding to front, part painted block work and render, part stone, part felt, part slate roof and is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outside any development envelope boundary.

Planning permission is sought for retention of shed, wall and porch and for proposed greenhouse, summer chalet and alterations to roof and single storey alterations to form garage and porch.

The shed is 4.6 by 1.8 by 2.3 metres high and is located in the rear garden. The proposed greenhouse will be sited in front of the shed of similar height and length measuring 1.2 metres wide. The proposed summerhouse is 'L' shaped measuring a maximum of 3.1 by 3 by 3.2 metres to ridge.

The red brick wall runs along the southern and part of the eastern boundary of the site. The wall will be capped with 40 mm thick coping slabs both on walls and piers.

Alterations on the front elevation involve having a pitched roof at first floor, infilling the front porch with pitched roof over and construction of a garage measuring 5.3 by 2.8 by 3.3 metres high. The garage replaces an existing car port. In addition, works have commenced on the construction of a porch on the northern elevation and it is understood that this is rebuilding of a previously sited porch. This is shown to measure 3 metres by 2.8 metres by 2.7 metres high.

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposals are of appropriate size, scale and design to original property and whether they would have any significant impact to the detriment of character of locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties and whether the proposal represents a detrimental impact on the landscape.

In accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan proposals will be expected to show good quality design and conform with the criteria set out in the policy. In addition, Policy H7 of the plan proposes extensions and alterations to existing residential properties will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy and in particular proposals will be approved where they are of appropriate size, scale and design to property and where the impact on neighbouring properties is not excessive.

Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) states that applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and specifically where they are for the benefit of the local rural economy and people who live there or reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development.

In my opinion the existing shed, proposed greenhouse and summer chalet are well located, do not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the area and are what would be expected within a residential curtilage. With regard the letter of concern indicating the shed has been built on land outside the application site, the applicant has confirmed that they do own all the land to which the application refers. Any boundary dispute would therefore be a civil matter.

The brick wall is constructed of second hand red brick which does match in with the brick details around the windows on the house. Although a large structure, the wall is not unduly prominent in the street scene and therefore in my opinion does not detract from the visual amenities of the area. It should be borne in mind that a wall up to 2 metres in height would fall under the permitted development legislation.

The alterations to the front elevation of the property are in my view an improvement on the existing frontage, more in keeping with the property. The alterations to rebuild the porch at the side does not present any adverse impact.

The fact that the site is within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not mean that there should be no domestic scale developments. The curtilage of the property is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposals.

I am satisfied that the alterations will not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties or detract from the amenities thereof. I am also satisfied that the materials used are in keeping with the existing property and the proposal does not represent overdevelopment of the site. Whilst I note comments of Town Council in this respect, I do not consider that this will provide justification for refusal of current application. Furthermore, I do not consider the alterations will detract from the appearance of the property or character of the area in general or adversely impact on the AONB.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the proposals are of an appropriate size, scale and design and will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of the adjoining residential property. In consequence, I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with Policies D1, H7 and C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation -       Approval (subject to no adverse comment that would warrant reconsideration).

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer initially made no formal comment. Has further visited site to address concerns and potential conflict with the existing bus services within Ashey Road and raises no objection. He confirms that the existing use of the shop means that vehicular movements to the site take place throughout the day whereas the proposed use would mean limited periods of trading. It is also likely that the majority of trade that the proposed chip shop generates would be derived from the surrounding residential area and would not significantly increase vehicular traffic to the site. Also confirmed that the Traffic Department agree that any standing vehicle problem caused by the change of use is unlikely to be worse than that arising from general retail use.

Environmental Health states that unconditional approval of this application may cause disamenity to occupiers of neighbouring residential properties from noise, fumes and odour. Initially the application contained insufficient information to properly assess these environmental implications.

Further information has been provided by the applicant and further comment received from Environmental Health. Having reviewed information relating to kitchen extraction equipment, hours of use, and delivery times, in order to protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties Environmental Health section recommends conditions if application approved.

Building Control Officer confirms Building Regulations not required for change of use from shop to A3 unless structural alterations, new drainage, or material alterations are carried out which adversely affect the means of escape in case of fire.

Southern Vectis opinion is the possibility of increased parking with subsequent potential obstruction to the highway on what is a registered local bus route and ask that should permission be granted, these implications be considered and addressed as appropriate.

A petition has been received from nine residents of Leighwood Close objecting on grounds of parking, highway safety, litter nuisance and health hazard, not in keeping with residential area.

Forty two letters of objection from thirty three households (some residents written under separate cover to local Member who has forwarded letters to file) raising objection on following grounds:

Inappropriate use in out of town residential area, detrimental to character of neighbourhood, insufficient local demand, devalue properties.

Highway safety - fast flowing busy road, no parking provision, proximity to junior school, no pavement to north of site, increased traffic volume and accidents, pedestrian safety. Proximity to existing two bus stops, limited forecourt, parking on road reducing traffic to one lane, encouraging standing traffic on the highway.

Proximity of extractor duct to residential properties causing smell, noise nuisance and health hazard.

Lack of street lighting.

Increased litter, noise, vandalism, social nuisance attracting meeting place for youngsters outside CCTV area, and late night disturbance.

Increased fire risk due to neighbouring 4" party wall, noise from operation.

Disagree with residents within immediate vicinity demonstrated high degree of support.

Strain on existing drainage system.

Concern that drawings submitted do not reflect semi-detached nature of property.

Increased rodents.

Too near to Ryde to serve town but not far enough away for it to be an area that hasn't own separate identity. Other similar ventures have struggled and closed.

Agents letter hopes the Local Planning Authority will treat application sympathetically bearing in mind support of local people, applicants track record in operating Cowes establishment and generation of employment which will result in five part time and one full time member of staff in what is presently a vacant shop which has been offered for sale for many months without success.

Six letters of support were submitted with the application from residents in Cowes who live in close proximity to existing chip shop in Victoria Road. Letters state that writers live in the vicinity of chip shop which is of high standard of quality and is clean and well run. The shop is set within a purely residential area and serves the local community. Letters state they have no problems with the shop or its location and have not been adversely affected by it in any way. As far as they are concerned there have been no negative reports regarding the chip shop and no complaints or problems raised because of its location.

Ten letters of support from seven households have been received from the Ryde area. Letters say that chip shop would be welcome in area. There used to be one and it served all the local community and that the current chip shop is too far away to walk to. Letter also states that a shop of this nature would help generate a community feeling in the area and that there are not many existing local shops, furthermore, "no objection whatsoever to the opening of a fish and chip shop in my area".

Evaluation

This application relates to a semi-detached property which is sited on the western side of Ashey Road approximately halfway between the junction with Pitt Street to the north and Wray Street to the south. Application seeks consent to change use of ground floor for retail Class A1 to take away fish and chip shop Class A3. Plans show internal changes to accommodate counter area, cooking area and preparation area and shows extract ducting to emanate from the southern side of the building.

The proposed trading times will be Monday to Saturday 4.30 pm to 9.30 pm and Saturday lunchtime 12 noon to 1.30 pm. Preparation time will be every morning for approximately two to three hours. Deliveries will be one only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at approximately 11 am.

The premises were formerly a retail shop which ceased trading in June 2001. There is currently residential accommodation at first floor.

Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. In particular, applications should provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public including the disabled; do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings; do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

Policy G10 (Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses) states that before granting planning permission for development, the Council will take into account the potential for conflict between existing, adjoining or surrounding development and activities. Development proposals may be refused permission if they are considered incompatible with existing, adjoining or nearby activities.

Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) states that applications for new development will be approved where they take into account the following matters for highway safety; proper provision of facilities to ensure safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians.

Determining factors in considering application therefore are whether there is any potential conflict of uses in the surrounding area and whether the proposal detracts from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and whether it provides safe movement for vehicular traffic, cycles and pedestrians.

This is a vacant shop in a residential area which would in the past have generated vehicular, pedestrian movement and deliveries. In considering whether the proposed use is appropriate in this location, it has to be borne in mind that planning conditions can be imposed to control hours of operation, deliveries, kitchen extraction equipment, refuse storage and noise levels. In terms of the extraction system's visual appearance, I am satisfied that this does not unduly attract from a visual impact point of view on the amenities of the area.

With regard to letters of support, it should be noted that these are not from properties in immediate vicinity.

When considering applications of a change of use it is often difficult to assess how much weight to give to the fact that the existing use does have on impact of amenity and arguably this effect on amenity has therefore been established in principle. However, an A3 use is clearly distinguishable from an A1 use which is reflected in legislation in that they are placed within separate use classes. Planning permission is not required for an A3 use to move closer (via A2) to an A1 use but planning permission is required in reverse. Of course the impact of an A3 use can be substantially reduced by the imposition of conditions. But should these be so tight that the use will have difficulty operating successfully?

It would also be unreasonable to restrict its use to a Fish and Chip Shop as its use could be a number of different fast food outlets. If these other uses put different demands (say late night activity) they may be difficult to resist as the principle of an A3 use would be established.

Overall although this application's impact on amenity can be reduced it still remains that this will be an A3 use in a residential area and will likely create conditions that will have an unacceptable impact.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the application represents an unacceptable, incompatible use in this residential location, detrimental to the amenities of the area and does not accord with policy and recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

One letter with annotated photographs received from local resident of Winchester Close objecting to the application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

The application does not include all of the unauthorised development that has taken place.

The shed in the garden area of number 16 has resulted in overshadowing of objector's garden.

The application has not been accompanied by a surveyor's report.

Incorrect descriptions and inaccurate dimensions.

The lean-to to the west of number 18 has not been shown on the plans.

The visual amenities of the area are significantly affected.

The incorrect fee has accompanied the application.

Evaluation

Application relates to a two storey block comprising of four maisonettes located on the north side of Winchester Close, approximately 55 metres east of the junction of Winchester Close and Linden Road. The application has been submitted by residents of three of the maisonettes.

The application can be divided into two parts. Firstly, the retention of three sheds, two being located in the allocated garden areas of the maisonettes and the third sited in the parking area to the north west of the maisonette block. Consent is also sought for an awning on the rear elevation of number 16.

Permission is also sought for the replacement of a shed within the parking area.

The shed located in the rear garden of number 16 has a floor area of 1.83 metres by 2.4 metres and a height to ridge of 2.17 metres. The shed sited within the parking area and known as the right hand side shed has a floor area of 1.83 metres by 2.43 metres with a height to ridge of 2.28 metres. The awning is approximately 3 metres wide and fully opens out to 1.5 metres away from the wall. The shed that is to be replaced is known as the left hand side shed and has an approximate floor area of 2.13 metres by 1.52 metres with a height to ridge of 2.25 metres.

Main considerations are Development Plan policy and the effect that the developments have on the visual amenities of the area.

Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan relates to Standards of Design and states that developments will be permitted only where they maintain or if possible enhance the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and respect the visual integrity of the site and do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site and do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

It is my opinion that the developments before Members are acceptable given their location and size. This type of development can be seen to characterise many gardens of residential areas. It is worth bearing in mind also that if this has been a single dwelling house, it is likely that the sheds may have been able to be constructed under permitted development. In my opinion, developments conform with policy.

Letter of representation queried numerous developments that have taken place within the curtilage of the maisonette block. These are summarised as follows:

Satellite dish, lean-to, decking, pergola, awning, fencing.

Further to an assessment of the site accompanied by the Area Enforcement Officer, the satellite dish is permitted development. The lean-to the west of no. 18 has been in existence for many years and is exempt from enforcement action. The fencing on site is under the 2 metre limit and is also permitted development. The decking to rear of no. 16 is unauthorised. There has also been a dispute regarding the length of time that the awning to the rear of no. 18 has been on site. The pergola sited within the garden area of no. 17 is unauthorised. Although no planning permission has been sought for the decking at no. 16, the awning on no. 18 and the pergola on no. 18, in my view, they have no impact on adjoining properties sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission or the authorisation of enforcement action. It would be appropriate therefore for the Committee to resolve that no further action should be taken on these matters.

In conclusion, I consider that the proposed developments and existing developments on site are acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I believe the developments are acceptable and in accordance with IW Unitary Development Plan Policy D1.

1.        Recommendation         -      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

2.    Recommendation         -      That the unauthorised decking, awning and pergola are acceptable developments with minimal impact on the visual amenities of the area or adjoining occupiers and that no further action is taken.