1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED
FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE. (In some circumstances,
consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED
BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4. YOU ARE ADVISED
TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION
ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5. THE COUNCIL
CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.
Members are
advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken
place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison
Officer. Any responses received prior
to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT
TO COMMITTEE –14
SEPTEMBER 2004
|
1. |
TCP/11837/E P/01078/04 Demolition of building;
outline for block of 11 flats, formation of vehicular access Cowes Jalopy
Shop 38, Medina Road, Cowes |
Cowes |
Refusal |
|
2. |
TCP/19522/D P/01276/04 Demolition of
building; construction of a terrace of 4 houses Vanner Mews Workshop
(Furniture Restoration), 3 Newport Street, Ryde |
Ryde |
Conditional Approval |
|
3. |
TCP/25588/A P/00979/04 Retention of
shed for sale of crab & fish Section of beach
opposite Riviera, 3, Esplanade, Ventnor |
Ventnor |
Conditional Approval |
|
4. |
TCP/26024/D P/00924/04 Proposed site
for drilling of exploratory bore hole; alterations to vehicular access Part OS parcel
1562 land on west side of, Whitehouse Road, Newport |
Newport |
Conditional Approval |
|
5. |
TCP/26192/B P/01586/04 Conversion of existing property to form 7 flats; 2/3 storey extension to form 3 flats; parking & alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) 1 Clatterford
Road, Newport |
Newport |
Refusal |
|
6. |
TCP/26302/A P/01507/04 Demolition of rear
single storey extension & conservatory; construction of rear extension
& conversion of dwelling to form 2 flats, (revised scheme) 70 Adelaide
Grove, East Cowes |
East Cowes |
Conditional Approval |
|
7. |
TCP/26352 P/01009/04 Stable block
comprising 2 stables, tack room, bedding store & hay barn OS parcel 8400,
land off, Lessland Lane, Sandford, Ventnor |
Godshill |
Conditional Approval |
|
8. |
TCP/26427 P/01384/04 Demolition of workshop;
retention of hard standing with associated retaining walls; alterations to
vehicular access & replacement workshop The Old Radio
Station, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor |
Niton |
Conditional Approval |
ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 14 SEPTEMBER 2004
(a) TCP/21195/E Stratford House, St.
Thomas Street, Ryde
To consider whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement
Notice requiring the removal of the satellite dish.
|
1. |
TCP/11837/E P/01078/04 Parish/Name:
Cowes Ward: Cowes Medina Registration
Date: 04/06/2004 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Highdown Homes Demolition of
building; outline for block of 11 flats, formation of vehicular access Cowes Jalopy
Shop 38, Medina Road, Cowes, PO31 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is a major submission
on a particular prominent corner site raising significant issues unique to this
site and therefore requiring committee considerations.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This major
application would have taken 14 weeks to date.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to vacant business premises situated on the southwestern side of Medina
Road at its junction with Bridge Road.
Immediately adjoining northwestern boundary are business premises occupied by a computer software
company. Adjoining southeastern
boundary are the rear gardens of a terrace of four properties numbers 1-4
Brunswick Road. Site is in an area characterised by mixture of uses both
business and residential. Existing building on the site is in the main
two-storeys in height although it does have single storey elements and has a
recent use as a shop and workshop with some external vehicle storage. To the north of the site on the opposite
side of Medina Road is the Shepherd's Wharf site which is mainly occupied as
open boat storage and working area and has public slip ways on to the River
Medina waterfront.
RELEVANT HISTORY
In March 2003 an
outline application for 10 flats and a shop with vehicular access was refused
for the following reasons:
Proposal
represents an over development of the site for reason of excessive mass and
height which would create conditions that are likely to give raise to an over
dominance of loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment
of the occupants of the adjoining properties to the southeast number 1,2 and 3
Brunswick Road and therefore the proposal is contrary to policy D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
The
site being within an area of risk to tidal flooding as indicated on the latest
available flood plan maps does not provide the required standard of protection
appropriate to safeguard it. The
applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate precautions and measures can
be put in place to ensure that lives and property of future residents of the
proposed development will not be at risk from flooding and will not place
additional burdens on the emergency services and therefore the proposal is
contrary to policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan and PPG25 - Development and Flood Risk.
Members are also
advised that in June 2004 outline consent was granted for residential
development with additional leisure and retail use as the ground floor, day sailing
centre and marina on the site of Shepherd's Wharf, Medina Road.
That this consent
was subject of a legal agreement covering :
Provision of off-site formal housing
Provision of alternative boatyard
facilities
Prevention of submission of planning
application for change of use of retail / leisure elements for 10 years
Availability of retail / leisure
facilities at market rental rates during that time
Contribution to the Council sustainable
transport fund of Ł38250.00.
The outline
consent included siting and means of access with design, external appearance
and landscaping being reserved matters.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Outline consent is
sought for the demolition of the existing building and outline consent for the
total 11 flats (7-two bed, 2-three bed and 2-one bed) a five storey block with
the accommodation being within the first, second, third and fourth floor above
ground floor parking providing a total of 11 spaces accessed off Bridge
Street. Submitted plans includes
provision for central common staircase with lift and two of the flats have been
designed to be through two floors.
Site is situated
within a floodplain area and therefore proposal indicates a raised platform
area abutting the common hallway which provides access to the staircase and
lift with this platform acting as a refuge for residents in the event of
flooding incident.
Building is of
modern design finished in a flat roof with the upper two floors being set back
both on the Medina Road and Bridge Road frontages. Sketch proposal also
indicate different architectural treatments in use of materials containing some
cantilevered balconies again both on the Medina Road and Bridge Road frontages.
The building has
been reduced in mass and in height where it abuts the rear of the properties in
Brunswick Road. Where it faces on to
this boundary the block is essential two-storeys in height with a steeply
sloping roof within which there are a number of skylights which will provide
light to sky terraces. The building is shown to be on the same footprint as the
existing building with the gap between the adjoining building in Medina Road
being retained.
Application has
been accompanied by a written statement with a summary of the contents being as
follows:
Proposal
provides a variety of housing units to satisfy demands within the Cowes area
and also satisfies Government policy to make best use of urban site.
Proposal
complies with PPG 3 to make best use of urban land with particular reference to
achieving suitable densities thus taking pressure off Greenfield sites.
A
proposal is well designed and well planned which should enhance the street
scene thus contributing to the local community.
Affect
on neighbouring properties has been addressed by ensuring that the rear
elevation of the scheme has a sloping roof and allows sky lights etc to be used
to provide light to amenities space within the units whilst reducing any
potential overlooking to an absolute minimum.
Applicant
recognises that the location and density of the development will attract the
need for financial contributions in respect of transport infrastructure, open
space and possible education contributions.
In terms of
addressing the flooding issue applicants have addressed this as follows:
To
contribute a sum of Ł25000 for the Inshore Lifeboat service at Cowes to provide
a specialist craft to supply services in an emergency evacuation.
To
provide a further Ł25000 to the above mentioned emergency services for future
maintenance and servicing charges in relation to the specialist craft.
Such
monies to be ring fenced under the auspices of the charity commission.
A
further sum of Ł1500 per year par servicing charges from occupiers of the flats
to be paid over to the Inshore Lifeboat facility to cover ongoing charges.
In terms of the
design of the building in relation to the floodplain issue applicants refer to
the following mitigating design features which
address the issues:
Floor
levels and ground levels have been taken to a point of safety i.e. 3.2 metres
above datum. Current street level is 2.4 above datum.
Parking
is at ground level below the 3.2 metre datum level as advised in guidance notes
and gives no risk to the occupants.
A
dedicated stage platform has been provide as a refuge for rescue purposes which
again is above the datum level required.
Applicants point
out that all the above has been subject to detail discussions with Cowes
Inshore Lifeboat, Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service, and the Environment
Agency.
All the above is
based on predicted flood level that could occur in 2060 and therefore the boat
will be provided and will have provision for disabled persons and would be able
to not only be used for training for such emergency services but also to be utilised
as provision of rescue now within the Cowes area in shallow waters. Applicants point out that there is no such
facility at the present time.
Applicants are of
view that their proposal has taken account of the various guidance contained in
PPG 25 - Development and Flood Risk, with particular reference to the paragraph
within that document which advises planning authorities to take a balanced
approach to sites within flood risk areas.
Application has
been accompanied by an engineers report which confirms number of the statements
referred to above and also covers factual information which supports the
application. These are summarised as
follows:
Ground
floor levels have been taken in the area which confirms the sites location on
the edge of the floodplain area of the land generally rising towards the
northwest and southwest. For
information the specific levels are as follows:
General ground level on the development site - 2.2 to 2.4 metres mean high water spring tide (MHWS) at Cowes is 1.61 metres
Highest
astronomical tide (HAT) at Cowes 2.01 metres
0.5% probability extreme high tide at Cowes 3.2 metres.
Tidal
flash flood risk is assessed using the predicted 0.5% probability extreme high
tide for the year to 2060 - equivalent to once every 200 years on average,
although does not mean that there will be 200 years between such events.
Extreme
high tide figure determined by factors including the effects of global warming
and therefore could be deemed to be speculative but is used nationally as a basis
for assessing tidal flood risk.
Levels
indicate that any building on this site would not be affected by ordinary tides
but might be isolated during an exceptional tide event with that event being in
the form of isolation rather than residential element of the proposal being
flooded.
Accepted
that wheeled emergency vehicles can transverse flood water to a depth of about
0.6 metres which in terms of a 0.5% probability extreme high tide situation
would mean that vehicle could get no closer than 100 metres. Proposed would be accessible to an emergency
vehicle during the 1% probability extreme high tide with such a flood being
likely to occur on average every 100 years.
Information
is available in terms of predictability of tides many years in advance and adverse weather conditions are also
predictable albeit over a shorter time scale.
Warnings are issued by the environment agency and the met office and
also the council. Such warnings would
result in appropriate action including communications of the warning to those
at risk.
Intended
that occupants of the development will be connected to the flood warning
system.
Engineers
statement then makes reference to various flood risk scenarios and comparing
such scenarios between residential and commercial. He concludes that the likelihood of such scenarios occurring are
infinitesimal.
Engineers
refer to recent approval decision for a dwelling in Well Road East Cowes which
was contrary to the environment agency recommendation for refusal.
Application also accompanied
by heads of terms in respect of a possible legal agreement covering the various
contributions referred to above.
Other information
relates to copies of correspondence with the Environment Agency and the Isle of
Wight Fire and Rescue Service.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN /
POLICY
National Policies
covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000 and PPG25 - development and flood risk
PPG3 covers the
following;
Provide
wider housing opportunities and choice by including better mix in size, type
and location of housing
Give
priority of reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take
pressures off the development of Greenfield sites
Create
more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public
transport, jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc
Make
more efficient use of land by adopting densities of 30-50 units per hectare
quoted as being suitable levels of density with even greater density of
development being appropriate in places with good public transport and
accessibility such as town centres etc.
Such density of development should not be at the expense of cramped
development and should respect existing local character
More
than 1.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government
emphasis on sustainable residential development.
PPG25 covers the
following:
Planning
is a material planning consideration with Environment Agency having a lead role
in providing advice on flood issues.
Planning
policies and development plans should give due consideration to flood issues
given that flood risk is expected to increase as a result of climate change.
Precautionary
principles should be applied using risk based search sequence to avoid such
flood risk where possible and managing elsewhere.
The
importance of functional flood plains should be recognised and inappropriate
development on undeveloped and undefended flood plains should be avoided.
Developers
should fund the provision and maintenance of flood defences that are required
because of development.
Planning
policies and decisions should recognise consideration of flood risk and
management needs to be applied on a whole catchment basis and not be restricted
to flood plains.
Strategic policies
Strategic policies
S1, S2 and S6 apply.
Local Plan policy
Planning policies
are as follows:
G4 - General Locational Criteria
G6 - Development in Areas Liable to
Flooding
D1 - Standards of Design
D2 - Standards for Development
Within the Site
TR7 - Highway Considerations for New
Development
TR16 - Parking Policies and
Guidelines
Site is located
within parking zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan which restricts parking
to 0-50% of maximum non operational parking provisions.
Reference is also
made to housing needs survey conclusions of which acknowledge the need for
single person accommodation although there continues to be ongoing demand for 2
or 3 bedroomed units to meet statutory homeless requirements.
CONSULTEE COMMENTS
Highway Engineer
is recommending refusal on the basis of the information accompanying the
application being inadequate and deficient in details.
Council's
Contaminated Land Officer recommends appropriate conditions should application
be approved.
Isle of Wight Fire
& Rescue service consider the proposals are satisfactory
Environment Agency
objects to the application on the following grounds:
Site
lies within their risk of tidal flooding as indicated on the latest available
flood plain maps. Existing flood
defences do not provide the required standard of protection appropriate to
safeguard the site
Proposed
development increase the number of people on to the site which does not have a
safe means of access/ escape in the event of flooding, thereby increasing the
number of people whose lives and property are at risk of flooding. This will also place an additional burden on
emergency services.
Whilst objecting
to the application the Environment Agency recognised the positive design
enhancements to the building which they confirm is located within an area at
risk of flooding with those enhancements including raising of the slab level,
location of solely car parking on the ground floor of the building, flood
proofing the building by design. They
do not consider however that it resolves the fact that development may be an
island during an extreme event with any depth of flood water making access by
emergency vehicles impossible.
They also
acknowledge that the principle of contributing to the emergency evacuation provision
is commendable being one the agency would promote. However requiring a specialist craft for evacuation would in
itself present additional burdens on emergency services.
The agency also
draws "the applicants attention to the sequential test in PPG25 which
states that there is a high risk of flooding for sites which are located within
an area of annual probability of flooding of 0.5% or greater in a tidal
flooding situation. This is currently
the area that is shown to be within the tidal flood plain on our indicative
flood plain map within which this site falls."
They point out the
objection is supported by relevant
policies within the U.D.P development plan and PPG25.
Finally they state
the following:
The
site of this proposal lies within a tidal flood risk area according to our most
recent flood plain maps and is therefore at a 0.5% or greater probability risk
of flooding in any one years. For your information the 0.5% probability extreme
sea level in the year 2060 for this area is 3.2 metres above Ordnance Datum
Newlyn. This makes an allowance of 6
millimetre per year for Global Warming / Land sinking but does not take into
consideration wave heights which should be allowed for when setting design levels.
Proposal has been
placed before an Architects Panel whose comments are summarised as follows:
Recognition
that height of building (5 storey) would be higher than existing development
but as upper floors would be set back, would have a different architectural
treatment and use of various materials this was considered an acceptable
approach
Some
concern expressed concerning the possible over dominance of the side elevation
on the Medina Road frontage where faced the adjoining building however they
consider it was likely that the adjoining land may well be redeveloped in the
future
Panel
considered that side elevations could be the subject of further articulation
and considered that a break in the elevation at top floor may reduce the visual
dominance of the building
Overall
the panel indicated that the concept and style of the proposal was acceptable
and the design of the building would be supported in this location. However
they considered that further information should be provided given that design
was not a reserve matter.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Cowes Town Council
supports the application but considers that the visual aspects from Medina Road
frontage could be improved.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Cowes Inshore Lifeboat confirm that they have
been approached by the applicants and have had sight of the agreement in
respect of financial contributions. I
confirm their full support is as follows:
Cowes
inshore Lifeboat is extremely pleased to be associated with these proposals as it
not only opens up new opportunities for the unit to expand its emergency
service to better handling of shallow water rescues and shoreline search and
rescue operations but it also allows us flexibility with the training of new
recruits within the service.
They also
considered that it will assist in fund raising activities.
Cowes Inshore
Lifeboat also had sight of the Environment Agencies comments and wish to
emphasise the following;
"...Cowes
Inshore Lifeboat for some time has been trying to find a way of establishing a
second rescue craft better suited to shore line and river search and rescue
operation sand for crew training. The
scheme as proposed providing such a craft by the developer is nothing short of a
godsend to my organisation which would not only enhance our service but also be
a benefit to the community of Cowes and Newport. Any suggestion that this
proposal will present an additional burden to us is totally incorrect. The
statement appears to have been made without the understanding of us as an
organisation.
Three letters of
objection have been received one from a Cowes resident and the other two from
residents of the adjoining Brunswick Road development. Points raised are summarised as follows:
Height
of building out of keeping with the area being higher than the adjoining Samuel
Whites building with the remaining buildings being only 2 to 3 storeys in
height
Height
of building will have an excessive impact on the adjoining properties in
Brunswick Road with particular reference to loss of light and overshadowing
Concern
that the foundations required for such a building will have an adverse impact
on neighbouring properties
Concern
that the general water levels with particular reference to the possibility of
there being natural springs in the area which may also be affected by this
proposal
Level
of development will have an unacceptable traffic impact given the average car
ownership per household is 2 vehicles. There is concern that parking provision
is limited and this proposal will increase on street parking pressures in an
extremely busy area
The
granting of consent for intensive development on the adjoining Shepherd's Wharf
site should not be seen as a justification for an over development of this
site.
The two adjoining
property owners reiterate the concerns regarding the height of the building and
the over shadowing effect caused by the close proximity of the
development. Concern is also expressed
regarding noise and car fumes in respect of the ground floor parking provision.
Letter received
from CPRE (Campaign to protect rural England) are critical of the
architecture. The pertinence of this
type of organisation commenting on applications within urban settings has been
questioned with particular regard as to whether or not CPRE have sufficient
competence in terms of qualified architects to make such a criticism. In reply they point out that CPRE consist of
a number of experienced members covering a wide span of professions and therefore
they feel that they are able to make constructive comments on planning
applications. In terms of whether or
not the scheme they comment on should be in rural areas only their committee
regards the 'distinction between urban and rural in an area as small as the
Isle of Wight is mostly artificial because of the immediate effects of each has
on the other'.
The outcome of the
correspondence in terms of this site is a further letter from the CPRE making
reference to a number of other sites throughout the Island in urban areas but stating
significantly the following:
...what
we wanted was some expert architectural input and this has apparently already
been provided
The expert advice
being referred to above is that which has been provided by the Architects
Panel.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime &
disorder implications are anticipated at this time bearing in mind it is an
outline application but would expect that the detail application would require
specific comments.
EVALUATION
The material
considerations in respect of this proposal are restricted to those covering
principle, design and siting bearing in mind that the application is in outline
form and therefore access external appearance and landscaping are reserved
matters in this case. The question of
principle raises a number of other issues with particular reference to the
sites location within a flood plain area as indicated on the 1999 Indicative
flood plains map.
Principle
The principle of
the redevelopment of this brown field site is unquestionable fully according
with national and local policies.
Existing buildings are in a poor state of repair contributing nothing to
the character of the area. The site
itself is closely linked to the proposed development on Shepherd's Wharf site
which members will note has now been approved.
Design / Mass and
Height
Members will note
that unusually this application requires design to be considered at this time
and inevitably design includes mass and height. The applicants have chosen a modern design approach which is heavily
articulated having a number of projecting features in the form of balconies and
a flat roof finish with a strong canopy overhang. The two upper floors are set back and are of a different
architectural treatment all of which assist in providing the building with
significant form and structure which is of importance given the prominent
corner location of the site. In general
I consider that this site deserves a 'statement building' and the proposal
before members provides such a building with the approach being endorsed by the
architects panels.
In terms of mass
and height although the building is five storeys in height that height is
restricted to the half of the building which fronts Medina Road returning in
part along Bridge Road.
The scale of development
certainly needs to be considered carefully in relation to existing development
in the vicinity of the site and in terms of its impact when approaching both
from Bridge Road but particularly along Medina Road from either direction.
The second consideration
is the visual relationship with the Shepherd's Wharf site. The approval on that site although in
outline was subject of a detailed assessment in terms of appearance and
townscape given its important Cowes waterfront situation. Both Architects Panel and the Councils urban
designer commented on the proposals and where generally in support although
significantly following that consultation the original proposal for six storey
blocks on the Medina Road frontage was reduced to indicate five storeys on that
frontage. Essentially it was important
to achieve a development which results in a general mix of heights to reflect
the overall mix in the area. Also
significantly the Shepherd's Wharf scheme would be seen as an exciting
opportunity for an impressive landmark development on the Cowes waterfront and
a five storey building on current application site would contribute to the mix
of heights of buildings which would form a backdrop to development on
Shepherd's Wharf when viewed from the water.
Similarly I
consider the relationship of the height and mass of the current proposal when
compared with the adjoining buildings particularly the JS White building is
satisfactory albeit the current proposal is taller than those buildings. It is accepted that a five storey block will
have a significant impact in visual terms on the two storey industrial building
which adjoins to the northwest. However
there is a 6.7 metre gap between the proposed five storey building and that
adjoining industrial building which provides valuable space about and between
reducing any over-bearing or over-dominant effects.
In terms of the
height of the building to the rear of the Brunswick Road properties applicants
have purposefully reduced the height to what is effectively 2.5 storeys with
the block then slopping steeply away from those Brunswick Road properties. The proposal does indicate the first floor
bedroom and a living room windows facing in that direction however appropriate
conditions covering the insertion of obscure glazing to prevent direct
overlooking would be sufficient to overcome any potential problems should
members be mindful to approve.
Second factor with
regards to the sloping roof is that is will not only reduce general scale of
the building when approaching down Bridge Road but will provide an interesting
architectural feature particularly where the insertion of the open sky terraces
and roof lights are introduced.
Siting
In terms of
siting, the building stands effectively on the same footprint as the existing
building which results in the building having a 19 metre frontage on to Bridge
Road by 17 metre frontage on to Medina Road.
Such a total site coverage is acceptable particularly for urban sites
such as this.
Vehicular access
on Bridge Street differs from the existing situation. In any event access is
not a matter to be considered at this time being reserved for future
approval. Similarly pedestrian access
including a separate ramped access for the disabled are shown to be off Bridge
Street. The platform refuge area as previously described has been indicated
adjacent the proposed access of Bridge Street and in this position it virtually
stands on the edge of the identified floodplain area.
Flood risk
implications
This is probably
the most important material consideration in respect of this application. Members will appreciate the lengths to which
the applicants have gone to both recognise and address the issues raised by the
Environment Agency who members will note are continuing to recommend refusal on
the same grounds as the previous application on the grounds that the proposal
does not provide a safe means of access or escape in the event of flooding
thereby placing residents lives at risk and placing additional burden on
emergency services.
The site itself
sits in the western corner of a floodplain area which effectively extends from
the waterline at the Floating Bridge in a northwesterly direction embracing
land either side of Medina Road terminating at the point which forms the
northwestern boundary of the application site.
The floodplain itself embraces a relatively small area of the Shepherd's
Wharf site but includes the whole of the Thesis Wharf site which is situated to
the southeast of Shepherd's Wharf and a significant proportion of the Samuel
White complex.
For more
information the 1999 Indicative floodplain map was produced in accordance with
Circular 30/92 Development of Flood Risk which has since been superseded by
PPG25 Development and Flood Risk.
Information accompanying the maps is as follows:
"..because
the information is indicative rather than specific local planning authorities
will never less need to consult the Environment Agency on individual
applications. Flood plain extent is
based on information available at the time of the survey. Areas shown at risk from flooding may or may
not have flood defences however in extreme flood events the risk of flooding
remains and other areas may also be affected.
Amendments will be required in future to account for information gathered
subsequently for example change in hydrological river response or observations
following flood events".
Members will note
that the Environment Agency have given due recognition to the applicants
efforts to address their concerns referring to them as being positive and
commendable. However despite this
recognition the Agency remain adamant that the advise in PPG25 should be
adhered to with particular reference to the sequential test. In this regard local planning authority
should adopt risk based approach taking into account a number of factors as
follows:
1. the
area liable to flooding
·
the probability of it occurring both now and over
time
·
the extent and standard of existing flood defences
and their effectiveness over time
·
the likely depth of flooding
·
the rate of flow likely to be involved
·
the likelihood of impacts to other areas,
properties and habitats
·
the effective effects of climate change
·
and the nature and current currently expected life
time of the development proposed and the extent to which is designed to deal
with flood risk.
The main concern
in this case is that the Environment Agency has identified the site has being
within a high risk flood risk area having an annual probability from tidal or
coastal flooding of 0.5%. The fact
remains that the site is within an identified functional floodplain albeit on
the edge of that floodplain and therefore under the guidance contained in PPG25
any development should be limited to some recreational sport or conservation
use and built developments should be wholly exceptional and limited to
essential transport and utilities infrastructure that has to be there. Advice clearly states that in considering
applications for development local planning authority should give priority in
descending order to the flood zones set out in the relevant tables and
unfortunately this site falls within zone 3 (C) and therefore the environment
agency is applying the guidelines rigidly in this case.
Whilst I too
commend the efforts of the applicants in addressing the issue I am in no
position to question the advice that has been given by the Environment Agency
and therefore have no option but to recommend refusal. This recommendation is despite the support
from the rescue services and certainly members should not be influenced by the
financial contributions being offered for the prime consideration is ensuring
safe occupancy of any development can be achieved. Obviously the situation is regrettable for this is a prime site
that could accommodate quality development but this is insufficient to make an
exception to the flood risk issues involved.
Applicants have
made reference to a recent application for a pair of maisonette in East Cowes
which was subject to a similar objection from the environment agency due to its
location within a flood plain however that site is within an area of relatively
modern residential development and that proposal simply represented a
continuation of that theme. Members will
recall that they took due note of the Agency's concerns however because of the
circumstances of the site they considered approval was appropriate despite the
application having officer recommendation for refusal. I do not consider there are similar circumstances
in this case with the current proposal involving a greater intensity of
residential development within the flood plain area which embraces in the main
mainly industrial or commercial uses.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming
to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been
given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of
the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in
the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in
the evaluation section of this report I consider that refusal recommendation is
the only option available given the objection from the Environment Agency which
accords with the Development and Flood Risk, and this is despite the
commendable and innovative mitigating measures which the applicants have
suggested. In all other respects I
consider the proposal to be acceptable in terms of mass, scale and design and I
consider the scheme has addressed any adverse impact on neighbouring
properties.
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Site lies within
an area at risk of tidal flooding as indicated on the latest available flood
plain maps. The existing flood
defences do not provide the required standard of protection appropriate to
safeguard the site. The proposed
development increase the number of people on the site which does not have
safe means of access /escape in the event of flooding thereby increasing the
number of people whose lives and property are at risk from flooding. This will also place the additional burden
on existing emergency services.
Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy G6 (Areas Liable to
Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and PPG25 - Development
and Flood Risk. |
|
2. |
TCP/19522/D P/01276/04 Parish/Name:
Ryde Ward: Ryde North West Registration
Date: 29/06/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Mr & Mrs S Adams Demolition of
building; construction of a terrace of 4 houses Vanner Mews
Workshop (Furniture Restoration), 3 Newport Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight,
PO332QB |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report
has been requested by local Member, Councillor Taylor, in view of local
concerns expressed particularly concerning lack of off-street parking.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This
application will have taken 11 weeks to determine due primarily to the need to
report matter to Development Control Committee.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site
currently comprises part single, part two storey workshop building under mono
pitched roof located on northern side of Newport Street close to its junction
with John Street. Property is unused and in state of disrepair.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
TCP/19522/B
– An outline application for a pair of houses approved in July 2003 under
delegated procedure. This consent indicated the provision of 2 off-street car
parking spaces.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Application
seeks consent for demolition of existing building on site and its replacement
with single terrace of four dwellings each comprising kitchen, lounge on ground
floor with bedroom and study above. Properties would occupy the majority of
site with small amenity space to rear (north) and western side of site.
Buildings
are shown to be finished in white smooth rendered exterior walls underneath
slated roof.
No
off-street parking provision is shown in connection with this development.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN POLICY
G1 –
Development Envelopes
D1 –
Standards of Design
D2 –
Standards for Development
B6 –
Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
H5 –
Infill Development
TR7 –
Highway Considerations
TR16 –
Parking Policies and Guidelines
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway
Engineer advises that, as Newport Street falls within Zone 2 of IW Council’s
Parking Guidelines, zero parking provision is acceptable. Additionally, site is
positioned close to public transport links and other amenities available in
Ryde town centre. He therefore recommends standard conditions, should consent
be granted.
Contaminated
Land Officer recommends standard site investigation condition, should consent
be granted.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not
applicable
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Letter
received from Councillor Chapman raising objection on grounds of over
development of site, not in keeping with street scene, no amenity space or
gardens and no parking provision. Currently, parking situation here is
intolerable as whole of The Mews has yellow lines and small amounts of echelon
parking at far end of The Mews has been taken up either by Police for their
vehicles or vehicles from other streets. There will be nowhere for cars to park
that would eventually come from these proposed properties.
Nine
letters have been received from surrounding residents objecting to proposal on
the following grounds:
Additional
letter with 19 signatories has been received, again, referring to problems
referring to shortage of parking spaces and difficulties in terms of access arrangements
particularly for emergency vehicles.
CRIME
& DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant
officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been
received.
EVALUATION
The
Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted and points out that site
abuts boundary to Conservation Area and is rear of Listed Buildings but raises
no objection in principle to redevelopment of this site. In more detail he
comments that the scale and design of the proposed terrace reflects the cottage
like character of traditional buildings although the terrace is rather larger
than the existing buildings which are in pairs or small groups. If the building
is well detailed with traditional joinery etc. it would appear acceptable in
the street scene and he suggests that if approved, details and front railings
should be subject to conditions. The rear and side walls form the boundary with
the Listed Buildings and are of traditional stone construction and it is
important these are retained and supported and made good if necessary.
It is
important to compare current scheme with approved outline consent for a pair of
dwellings which are considered siting and means of access. Site width is
approximately 42 metres of which the approved dwelling mass totals some 14.5
metres. The proposed scheme whilst increasing the number of proposed dwelling
units to 4 increases the massing of the proposed buildings to a width of some
16 metres (and increase of 1.5 metres). Building depth has also increased from
some 6.25 metres to 6.4 metres, reducing the distance of the building to the
rear boundary accordingly.
Rear
facing first floor windows would only provide light to bathroom areas with no
habitable room openings on this side elevation.
As
Conservation Officer advises there is no objection in principle to residential
redevelopment of this site and whilst the proposal increases number of
residential units, increase in width of building mass is relatively small. In
terms of design, scale and detail proposal is considered acceptable within
position.
Main
issue with respect to development of this site relates to proposals intention
to provide no off-street parking whilst previously approved scheme indicated
two available car parking spaces.
Given
that site is located within relatively sustainable location (Zone 2) and given
proposal compliance with zonal parking policy it is considered that it would
not be reasonable to resist the development of this site on grounds of lack
off-street parking. Site is both within short distance of bus routes and
relatively easy walking distance to town centre given scale of development
proposed and in the light of comments made in terms of sustainability of
location it is not considered appropriate to request a Parking Provision
Assessment in this instance. Whilst appreciating Members concerns and
difficulties in respect of application and parking policy it is considered
proposal represents new development in sustainable location which should in
combination with encouragement to use public transport reduce reliance on motor
car in accordance with local and national transport objectives. Proposal is
also seen as achieving best possible use of urban land in appropriate location
in accordance with PPG3.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In coming
to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been
given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of
the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Given
due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in
this report I am satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable scale and
form of development at a sustainable location and furthermore I am satisfied
that proposal will not detract from character of locality or amenities of
neighbouring properties and accordingly the application is recommended for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
No
development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby
permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The
doors and window frames of the building shall be constructed of timber and
shall be painted in an agreed colour and thereafter maintained. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of
the existing building and to comply with policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
No development
shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type
of boundary treatment to be erected to include front boundary railings. The
boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) hereby permitted
are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the
amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
The
existing boundary walls to the west and north of the application site shall
be retained and not subject to any alteration without the expressed written
consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the
amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
Withdrawn PD
right for windows/dormers - R03 |
|
7 |
Withdraw PD rights
alterat/extens/etc - R02 |
|
3. |
TCP/25588/A P/00979/04 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West Registration
Date: 28/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr G W Blake Retention of
shed for sale of crab & fish section of beach
opposite Riviera, 3, Esplanade, Ventnor, PO38 |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The
Local Member, Cllr Bartlett was not prepared to deal with this application
under the delegated procedure as this building was not removed on expiration of
the previous temporary consent and he is concerned that the long term retention
of the building would detract from the amenities of the area.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is
a minor application the processing of which has taken seven weeks to date. A decision at this meeting would be within
the statutory eight week time limit for determination of planning applications.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The
proposal is located along Ventnor Esplanade, a site that is characterised by a
mix of uses ranging from housing, hotels, retail and tourist facilities. There is no dominant use within the
area. Most of the development is
located on the north side of the Esplanade.
The
land located south of the built frontage looks over Ventnor beach, which is
undeveloped, having vistas of the seashore and the English Channel. A public footpath (3m wide) runs along the
sea wall of the esplanade and is raised at around 2-3 metres from Ventnor
Beach.
The
esplanade has a similar beach hut located around 10m away to the east, also
raised on stilts from Ventnor Beach, selling similar products as the
application in question. The scale,
mass and design are very similar to the current proposal.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
TCP/25588
– Temporary planning permission for shed for sale of crab and fish
conditionally approved 19 June 2003 expiring on 31st December 2003.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
The
application is for the retention of the timber building for the sale of crab
and fish. The structure is a wooden
clad building with a shallow pitch roof protected with felt. The building is currently finished in a dark
blue stain. The shed is constructed on stilts that are fixed onto Ventnor
Beach, jutting out from the esplanade, raised up from the beach at a height of
around 3m. The building is accessed
from the esplanade, obtaining trade from pedestrians along the public
walkway.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The
application is within the development boundary of Ventnor, but is not within an
area designated for any specific purpose within the Unitary Development Plan.
Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as
follows:
S6
-High Standard of Design
G4 -
General Locational Criteria
G10 -
Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses
D1 -
Standards of Design
T1 -
The Promotion of Tourism and Extension of the Season
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
English
Nature consider that the development is unlikely to have significant effect on
the interests of the designated European site
Navigation,
Spectrum and Surveillance (NATS) has no objection to the application
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Ventnor
Town Council recommend that this application be granted temporary approval
until 31/12/04
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Application
has attracted five letters from local residents objecting to application on
grounds that can be summarised as follows:
·
Ventnor Haven was granted planning permission for the
sale and processing of seafood products, therefore not necessary to retain this
structure
·
Removal of the shed will give more space for
residents and visitors to Ventnor
·
Affects potential access to the beach
·
Insufficient parking, affecting congestion, chance
of accidents and clocking exit to residential parking
CRIME
AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No
crime and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
The
issue in question is if this business operation should be granted a further temporary
time period along the esplanade and whether the structure affects the visual
amenities of the area.
There
is a similar business unit located to the east of the application site, selling
the exact same products. The real
issue therefore is whether the proliferation of this unit affects the visual
amenities of the area. Members are reminded though that the viability of
business operations is not a planning consideration.
Although
the Local Planning Authority would not want to encourage extensive development
on the seaward side of the Esplanade, leading to an over proliferation of
similar developments, it is considered that this small unit has very little
impact to the localised environment. It
does not spoil the open vista of the English Channel or onto Ventnor beach, nor
does it affect the reasonable use of the beach. It does not affect pedestrians using the public footpath along the
esplanade. Even if people do congregate
outside the premises, the 3m walkway is of substantial size to accommodate
this. The materials used within the
construction are sympathetic to the locality, not being an incongruous feature
in the coastal environment.
The
granting of temporary permission within the previous approval was deemed on its
own merit. The basis of that application was that the applicant would relocate
after finding permanent premises. In consultation with the applicant he is
unable to relocate into Ventnor Haven presently, with a more realistic date
being in February 2005. Having given
regard to the location, design and siting, it is deemed that the retention of
the structure for a further temporary time period, would not have an adverse
impact upon the amenities of the area.
A local
resident expresses concern that the unit takes up valuable space
along the esplanade. The footprint used
upon the beach takes up a relatively small space, leaving adequate space for
recreational purposes. There is also
concern that access to the beach is restricted. Access to the beach is elsewhere along the esplanade and it is
unreasonable to say proposal would affect public rights of way.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other
property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR DECISION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report, it is considered that having regard to the spatial
relationship of the proposal with nearby land uses, the renewal of the
permission will have minimal impact to the amenities of the area and will not
prejudice the overall setting, character or sustainability of Ventnor Esplanade
and the application is deemed to be in accordance with strategic and local
policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
When
the premises ceases to be occupied by Mr G W Blake or at the end of the
period of 3 years from the date of this permission, whichever shall first occur,
the use hereby permitted shall cease and all materials and equipment brought
onto the land in connection with the use shall be removed. Reason: But for the personal circumstances put forward
by the applicant, the application would not have been approved. |
|
4. |
TCP/26024/D P/00924/04 Parish/Name:
Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West Registration
Date: 14/05/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575 Applicant: Northern Petroleum (GB) Ltd Proposed site
for drilling of exploratory bore hole;
alterations to vehicular access Part OS parcel
1562 land on west side of, Whitehouse Road, Newport, PO30 |
REASON FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The application is
a minor submission that raises a number of issues to be resolved. In particular, the local member, Councillor
Mrs Foster, has expressed concern with regard to likely impact of the
operations on nearby residential occupiers.
LOCATION AND SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to area of agricultural land located on western side of Whitehouse Road
approximately 370 metres north of the Vittlefields Cross junction. The site is relatively level and open with
road side boundary defined by hedgerow, presently having height of
approximately 2 metres. The existing
field gate is located in north-east corner of the field provides access to site
off Whitehouse Road.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/17582/M/12614-
Planning permission for drilling of two exploration wells for oil and / or
natural gas on land at Youngwoods Farm, Whitehouse Road conditionally approved
28 July 1981. This approval related to
an area of land on western side of Whitehouse Road approximately 1 kilometre
north of the current application site. However, it is understood that this
proposal involved exploration of the same oil resources as the current
proposal.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
Planning
permission is sought for drilling of exploratory bore hole, to include
ancillary works and alterations to the existing vehicular access. The proposal involves area having frontage
to Whitehouse Road of 110 metres and depth of 90 metres, an area of
approximately 1 hectare. Proposal would
involve the creation of a level drilling platform approximately 70 metres by 55
metres. The area of the works would be contained within an earth bund with
height of approximately 1.5 metres. A
number of tanks, temporary office facilities and equipment, including the
drilling rig, associated with the exploratory works would be located within the
bunded area. The rig itself would comprise a lattice tower type structure with
a height of approximately 36 metres (120 feet). Supporting information which accompanies the submission indicates
that the rig would be required for a period of approximately one month and
would be removed once drilling was completed.
Subsequent testing would then take place over a period of approximately
5 months.
The supporting
information contains details of the estimated movements of heavy and light
vehicle traffic generated at each stage of the operation from construction,
drilling, testing through to restoration of the site. Site construction would
generate highest level of heavy goods vehicle movements, estimated at 12 visits
per day and 4 or 5 visits per day during rig mobilization, drilling and rig
removal. During the initial testing
period (approximately three weeks) it is predicted that there would be 3 visits
per day by heavy goods vehicles. During the extended testing period
(approximately 16 weeks) this would fall to 1 vehicle per day. The greatest
number of light vehicle movements would occur during the drilling phase and the
initial testing resulting in 12 visits per day.
Proposed
operations would necessitate improvements to access and visibility displays,
requiring a reduction in the height of the hedgerow in the frontage of the site
to 1 metre above road level. In addition the face of the hedge to the roadside
boundary of the field to the north would be trimmed to ensure adequate
visibility.
The supporting
information also includes details of measures for pollution prevention and
indicates that in the unlikely event that oil should escape from the
exploratory well, it would be retained in the site by the encircling containment
bund. This area would have a capacity of approximately 1925 cubic metres,
equivalent to an escape rate of about 300 barrels per day for 30 days. Any oil
escaping from the well would be taken from site by tanker to an approved
disposal facility. The bore hole itself
would be lined with steel casing, cemented in place, thus protecting
underground water resources. Details of
such casing would be approved with the Environment Agency.
In the event that
the bore hole indicates that the reservoir is not viable to exploit, it would
be plugged and made safe. Should the
applicant wish to further explore, appraise or extract at the site this would
be the subject of a separate and comprehensive planning application which would
provide details of the methods of processing and transportation of the
hydrocarbons from the site.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site is located
outside development envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. A scheduled ancient
monument, a bronze-aged round barrow, is located approximately 200 metres to
west of the application site. Relevant
policies of the UDP are considered to be as follows;
S4 -
Countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.
G4 -
General Locational Criteria for Development.
G5 -
Development Outside Defined Settlements.
G10 -
Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.
B9 -
Protection of Archaeological Heritage.
C1 -
Protection of Landscape Character.
C13 -
Hedgerows.
M2 -
Criteria for Defined Mineral Workings.
M3 -
Criteria for New Mineral Workings.
M4 -
Safeguarding Mineral Reserves.
M7 -
Oil and Gas Exploration.
M8 -
Restoration and Aftercare
P1 - Pollution
and Development.
P2 -
Minimise Contamination from Development.
P5 -
Reducing the Impact of Noise.
TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development.
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway Engineer
initially recommended refusal on grounds of insufficient information in respect
of access and parking. However,
following submission of further information, he has withdrawn his
recommendation for refusal and recommends conditions should the application be
approved.
Principle
Environmental Health Officer initially requested submission of comprehensive
noise assessment in order to determine impact of proposal on neighbouring land
uses. However, after further
consideration of the information which forms part of original submission, I am
including details of noise levels from the operations, he recommends condition
should application be approved.
Archaeology
Assistant advises that site lies approximately 200 metres to east of Scheduled Ancient
Monument 22027, a bronze-aged round barrow with cremations. Therefore, she
advises that English Heritage must be notified of the proposal as scheduled
monument consent may be required under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act. These consultations have been carried out and
comments are awaited from English Heritage.
Council's
Assistant Ecology Officer has considered impact of proposal on hedgerows in
this area, particularly creation of required visibility display to the access.
She advises that the trimming of the hedge along the application site to 1
metre in height should not compromise the long-term viability of the hedge and
it should regrow successfully once the operations on site have finished. Similarly, the necessary trimming of the
hedge to the north of the site should not have an adverse effect providing this
involves removal of the newer growth rather than cutting into the larger
branches of the hedge. However, she
advises that any cutting will be most successful if the blades on
equipment are sharp, providing a cleaner and neater finish, and that any
cuttings should take place outside the bird nesting season (ie during the
months of August - February inclusive).
She considers that once operations are complete at the site, the
hedgerow should be allowed to grow to its present height (approximately 2
metres) and that should any part of it have been damaged by the trimming
operation, repairs should be carried out by planting hawthorn or blackthorn
whips. The restoration should also
include replanting of the hedgerow removed in order to widen the access.
PARISH / TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
Two letters
received from local residents objecting to the proposal of grounds which can be
summarised as follows;
This
type of development totally inappropriate for location - industrial in nature.
Whitehouse
Road unsuitable for type of equipment required for operations
Junction
of Whitehouse Road and Forest Road is a site of many accidents and additional
traffic, particular heavy vehicles should be avoided.
Site is
adjacent Rodge Brook with flows into nature reserve at Newtown Creek, an area
vulnerable to any pollution.
Continuous
noise of the operation would be intrusive to residents in surrounding area.
Any
subsequent extraction would exacerbate impacts and increase chances of
pollution.
Nuisance
from lights
Need
for dog house questioned - security can be provide by workers and dogs would
cause further noise and nuisance
Industrial
development of this type will detract from rural character of area- site should
be screened by landscaping.
Drilling
at this location is not necessary
Insufficient
evidence of adequate safeguards to protect residents and the environment during
operation
Will be
of no benefit to island economy
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implication anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining
factors in considering application are whether the operations would cause
unacceptable harm to the character of the area and amenities of nearby
residents and whether proposal would be likely to have detrimental impact on
the environment and local wildlife.
In determining the
appropriateness of the site for the proposed operations, it is necessary to
take into account a number of factors, both from a planning perspective and
from the suitability of the site for the purposes of oil exploration. With regard to the latter, the supporting
information which accompanies the application indicates that the selection process
took into account geological factors to ensure that the borehole site was as
close as possible to the prospects forecast crest which will enable the
vertical or near vertical well to be drilled as quickly as possible and thus
minimise the duration of the activities and the amount of equipment brought to
the site over local roads. The
supporting information also indicates that full account has been taken of the
recognised and understood need to minimise the environmental impact of the
activities. It is further understood
that the site selection has also been based on historical information of the
area and a seismic survey carried out across a large part of the northwestern
corner of the island earlier this year (2004).
In terms of the planning constraints, members are advised that the site
is not located within an area designated for its landscape value and is not in
an area which is considered to be ecologically sensitive. Whilst the site is in
close proximity to a scheduled ancient monument, it is considered that proposal
is unlikely to have any adverse impact on this feature.
The drilling rig
required in connection with these operations will clearly have greatest impact
by reason of its height and is likely to be visible over a significant distance
due to the topography and open character of the surrounding area. However, it would only be necessary for the
rig to be on site until such time as the drilling of the bore hole is completed
and the applicants estimate that this would take approximately 3-4 weeks. The drilling operation would take place on a
continuous 24 hour a day basis in order to restrict to an absolute minimum the
period over which the rig is required. This would also limit the potential disturbance
of the drilling operation on the surrounding area and nearby residential
occupiers in particular. On completion of these operation's the rig would be
dismantled and removed from site.
Having regard to
the rural character of the area, there are few dwellings in the immediate
locality. The nearest property is
located on the eastern side of the Vittlefields Cross junction at a distance of
approximately 370 metres, measured from the proposed position of the bore hole
to the boundary of the property. The
greatest potential for noise disturbance is likely to arise from vehicle
movements and the drilling operations.
However, as indicated above the drilling of the borehole, although
taking place 24 hours a day is likely to be completed in approximately 3-4
weeks. Furthermore, given the distances
involved and following consultations with the Environmental Health Officer, who
has considered the information within the supporting documentation, it is not
considered that the drilling operations will cause an excessive or unacceptable
impact on nearby dwellings. With regard
to noise from vehicles attending the site, I do not consider the level of
traffic generation on a daily basis would be significant and the information
accompanying the submission indicates that, for the most part, this would occur
during normal week day working hours.
Therefore, I do not consider that this factor would justify withholding
consent.
Once the drilling
rig has been removed the remaining equipment and structures would be partially
screened by the bund surrounding the working area. The information which accompanies the submission indicates that
construction of the site, drilling operations and testing will take
approximately 30 weeks, shortly after which all equipment and structures could
be removed and site restoration carried out, unless the testing indicates that
it would be financially viable to exploit the oil within the reservoirs,
although it would be necessary for the applicant to make a further planning
submission in this respect. However,
the current submission for an exploratory borehole should be considered on its
own merits and should not be judged on any possible subsequent proposals.
Concern has been
expressed by local residents that Vittlefields Cross is a site of many
accidents and that, for this reason, generation of additional traffic,
particularly heavy vehicles, should be avoided. Whilst a degree of additional traffic would be generated by the
proposed operations, most of which would approach along Forest Road and up
Whitehouse Road, I do not consider that, given the number of vehicle movements
involved, this would have significant impact on highway safety. In addition, I
am aware that this junction has been identified by the Highways Traffic Section
as an accident cluster site and proposals are presently being considered to
improve the safety of this junction, one option would include realignment of
hedgerows to improve visibility for vehicles emerging from Whitehouse Road and
Betty Haunt Lane.
Concern has also been
expressed that pollutants from this operation could enter a nearby watercourse
resulting in pollution downstream at Newtown Creek. Whilst I accept that such
an occurrence could not be totally ruled out, the information which accompanies
the submission provides details of pollution prevention measures in the event
of any spillage. In particular, the
purpose of the bund constructed around the site is to retain any such spillage
within the working area. The
information indicates that the capacity of the area surrounded by the bund is
approximately 1925 cubic metres, equivalent to an escape rate of 300 barrels
per day for 30 days (approximately 360,000 gallons). Such capacity would
clearly provide sufficient time to implement measures to remedy any spillage,
significantly reducing the potential for contamination of local water
courses.
Reference has also
been made by residents to the need for a 'dog house' and concern expressed that
dogs would cause further noise and nuisance to local residents with suggestions
that security can be provided by the workers attending the site. The submitted plans show a number of
structures and equipment, including an area notated as a 'dog house'. However, following discussions with the
applicants, it is understood that this facility is not for housing guard dogs
but is an area occupied by operatives monitoring the drilling operations.
With regard to
possible benefits to the Islands economy, the information accompanying the
submission indicates that, whilst these operations are not labour intensive and
unlikely to make any marked contribution to local employment, maximum use of
local labour would be made, particularly during site construction and
restoration. In addition use of local services will help to maintain or provide
some secondary employment opportunities.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in
this report, it is accepted that, whilst the proposal will have some impact in
the landscape, particularly over the period during which drilling operations
will take place, I am satisfied that such impact will not be excessive and will
not cause harm in the long term to the amenities of the locality and nearby
residential properties in particular.
Furthermore, having regard to the location of the site, approached over
the busy Forest / Yarmouth Road and Whitehouse Road, I do not consider that the
operations will generate a significant level of vehicle movements and that,
subject to the formation of adequate visibility splays and parking, loading and
unloading facilities, such traffic can be accommodated without detriment to
highway safety.
1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
This
permission shall authorise the use of the land to drill and evaluate an exploratory
bore hole for a limited period expiring on 30th September 2005, unless the
prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in
writing for a further period. Reason: To minimise the potential impact of the
drilling and evaluation of the exploratory bore hole in the interests of the
amenities and character of the locality and to comply with policies G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and
C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
2 |
Prior
to the expiration of this consent, a scheme for the restoration of the site
on cessation of the authorised use shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include the seating of the bore
hole, removal of all imported material and decontamination of the site where
necessary, reinstatement of the access to its original condition and the
final contours and seeding of the land.
The restoration scheme shall be completed within 3 months of the
expiration of this consent, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority or further consent has been granted to establish a
facility at the site to extract the hydrocarbon from this location. Reason:
In the interest of the amenities and character of the locality and to
comply with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1
(Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), and M8
(Restoration and Aftercare) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Prior
to work commencing on site, a contingency plan for dealing with pollution
control in the event of a spillage or other such emergency shall be submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any preparatory measures,
such as construction of the bund, forming part of the contingency plan shall
be implemented prior to drilling commencing on site. Reason: To minimise risk
of pollution / contamination in the interests of nature conservation and to
comply with policies P1 (Pollution and Development), P2 (Minimise
Contamination from Development), and C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material
Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Prior
to work commencing on site, details of all lighting required in connection
with the drilling and evaluation processes shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter, only such approved lighting shall be erected / installed
on site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area in general and nearby residential
occupiers in particular and to comply with policies G4( General Locational
Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light Spillage),
and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
This
permission shall not authorise the use of the land edged red on the submitted
plans for development and production purposes. Reason:
To enable the Local Planning
Authority to consider the potential impact of development and production from
the site in the interests of the amenities of the area in general and nearby
residential properties in particular and to comply with policies G4 (General
Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standard of Design), and C1
(Protection of Landscape Character). |
|
6 |
The top
soil to be removed in connection with the construction of the facility shall
either be used in the formation of the bund surrounding the working area or
shall be stored in a position to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority
for reuse in the restoration of the site. Reason: In
the interest of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply
with policies G4(General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards
of Design), and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
All
heavy goods vehicle movements to and from the site associated with the
construction of the site, drilling of the bore hole and restoration of the
site shall be restricted to the period between 07.00 hours and 19.00 hours
Monday to Friday, and 08.00 hours to 14.00 hours on Saturdays and at no times
on Sundays or recognised Bank holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority or such movement, vehicles are necessary in
the event of an emergency as part of the contingency plan required pursuant
to condition 3. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residential properties
in particular and to comply with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for
Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise)
of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
The
drilling rig shall only be erected / installed on site during the process of the
drilling of the bore hole and on completion of the operation, the rig shall
be dismantled and removed from site. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies G4
(General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), and
C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
9 |
The
sound levels attributable to all activities on site, as measured at the
boundary of any noise sensitive premises shall not exceed the following
levels; 55
dBLAeq, 1h during the period 07.00 hours to 19.00 hours; 42dBLAeq,
5min during the period 19.00 hours to 07.00 hours the following morning. In
addition no individual noise event, as measured at the specified positions,
shall exceed 60dBLAmax. In
each case, these values shall be reduced by 5dBA where, in any measurement
period, any two adjacent one/third octave band frequency measurements differ
by more than 5dB. Reason:
In the interests of the
amenities of occupants of noise sensitive properties within the locality and
to comply with policies D1 (Standards of Design), and P5 (Reducing the Impact
of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
With the
exception of section of hedgerow to be removed to widen the access, in
accordance with the approved plans, the hedgerow along the frontage of the
side shall be retained and shall be reduced to a height of 1 metre above road
level within the agreed visibility splay.
A barrier of an approved specification shall be established along a
line between the hedgerow, along the frontage of the site and the northern
boundary, and the working area to prevent damage to the hedgerows during the
course of operations. On cessation of
the authorised operations at the site, such barrier shall be removed and the
hedgerow shall be allowed to grow to a height consistent with other hedgerows
along this roadside frontage. Reason:
To ensure the continuity of
amenities forwarded by existing hedges or hedgerows in the area and to comply
with policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards
of Design), and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
The use
hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the
site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority for cars/lorries to be parked
vehicles to be loaded and unloaded and to turn on site so that they may enter
and leave the site in forward gear.
The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that
approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply
with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
Development
shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service
road and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
the use hereby authorised shall not commence until that junction has been
constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To
ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with policy
D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order
with or without modification), no gates shall be erected other than gates
that are set back a minimum distance of 16.5 metres from the edge of the
carriageway of the adjoining highway. Reason: In
the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
14 |
The
use hereby authorised shall not commence until the site lines have been
provided in accordance with the visibility splay shown in a northerly and
southerly direction on the approved plan (drawing no: I\NPOIL.1\1). The hedgerow across the frontage of the
site shall be reduced to 1metre in height above road level within the
visibility splay. In addition, the hedgerow to the north of the access shall
be trimmed so as not to obstruct the approved visibility splay. Reason:
In the interest of highway
safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New
Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
15 |
Steps,
including the installation and use of wheel cleaning facilities in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, shall be taken to prevent material being deposited on the highway
as a result of any operation on the site.
Any deposit of material from the site on the highway shall be removed
as soon as practicable by the site operator. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
prevent mud and dust from getting on the highway and to comply with policies
TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
2. RECOMMENDATION. That the decision notice is accompanied by letter advising that the reduction in the height of the hedgerow
across the frontage of the site and the trimming of the hedgerow to the north
of the access should be carried out in such a way as to cause minimal damage to
the hedgerow. This should include use
of equipment will sharp blades.
|
5. |
TCP/26192/B P/01586/04 Parish/Name:
Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West Registration
Date: 26/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Applicant: Mr J Lavell Conversion of
existing property to form 7 flats; 2/3 storey extension to form 3 flats;
parking & alterations to vehicular access (revised scheme) 1 Clatterford
Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301PA |
REASONS FOR
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Application had proved
particularly contentious in respect of design, access and parking issues, all
of which result in the need for Committee determination in this case.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is a major
application the processing of which will have taken 7.5 weeks to date.
LOCATION &
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to St Mary's Vicarage situated approximately 35 metres southwest of the
junction of Clatterford Road/High Street/Priory Road. St Mary's Vicarage stands within a treed curtilage and slopes in
a series of tiers from the road frontage towards the south east. There is a
vehicular access off Clatterford Road located in the northern corner which not
only gives access to the front of the dwelling but also serves a side access to
the rear of the property. There is also a pedestrian access which extends the
whole length of the northeastern boundary. It provides access to a Roman villa
which, according to the listing, is only partially uncovered and has been
classified as being within the grounds of St Mary's Vicarage located to the
southeast.
Adjoining the
southwestern boundary is a detached property, No.9 Clatterford Road, which is a
two storey detached house which stands in close proximity to Clatterford
Road. This property has an extensive
rear garden area with an access which runs parallel with the southwestern
boundary off Clatterford Road and which gives vehicular access to other
properties that sit in the lower land behind properties fronting Clatterford
Road. This rear garden is overlooked by
the vicarage building. Adjoining the
northeastern boundary are in the main rear gardens to properties which front
Carisbrooke Road, being Nos.95 and 97 Carisbrooke Road. Opposite the site is the car park which
serves the public house The Waverley.
The frontage itself stands on the outside of a curve in Clatterford
Road.
RELEVANT HISTORY
A similar proposal
was subject of an application which was processed for consideration at the
Planning Committee on 1st June 2004, at which time the applicants withdrew the
application.
DETAILS OF
APPLICATION
As implied above,
this is a second application seeking consent for a development on this site.
Detailed consent
is sought for the conversion of the Vicarage to provide a total of 7 flats, 6
providing two bedroom accommodation and 1 providing three bedroom
accommodation.
Because of the
sloping nature of the site the two flats on the ground floor are entered via
separate accesses, one being from the south and the other being from the east.
Remaining five flats are entered via the existing main entrance on the north
facing elevation, with the internal layout being radically altered with new
staircase entrances serving the first, second and third floors. the three bedroom flat is within the third
floor, largely within the roof space.
The second element
of the application relates to an extension attached to the western side of the
existing building providing 3 two bedroom flats on ground floor, first floor
and second floor accessed via a separate common entrance off the north facing
element of the extension.
Design of the
extension is an exact copy of the existing building in terms of window shapes,
quoins, dressing around windows, two gabled features with a central valley and
decorative bargeboards. There is a total
of six sash windows facing in a southwesterly direction.
The suitability of
the access both in terms of its ability to accept the additional traffic and
provide appropriate visibility was a major issue in respect of the previous withdrawn
application and was essentially the reason for that application being
withdrawn.
This second
application now indicates a widening of the existing access at its junction
with Clatterford Road to 6 metres which compares with the existing access of 4
metres. The driveway to the front of
the building to be increased to accommodate 4 parking spaces and turning. Proposal provides for the removal of the
screen fence which runs parallel with and set 1.7 metres off the northeastern
boundary over a distance of 33 metres.
Removal of this fence enables a 3.6 metre wide driveway to be provided
which runs between the building and the northeastern boundary with that
driveway being set approximately 0.4m off the northeastern boundary. That proposed driveway then curves beyond
the existing building to the rear and serves a total of 9 parking spaces with
turning area located to the rear of the property on the top tier. The
construction of the driveway involves the loss of one yew tree. The proposal also provides for a parking
space directly abutting the northeast facing elevation of the existing property
parallel with that property. The
driveway itself to be pre graded and re leveled. The driveway and parking areas to be finished with granite
chippings enclosed by curbing.
Application
indicates the clearance of bushes and shrubs along the frontage boundary with
that clearance including removing overhanging branches of existing trees where
they were less than 2.5 metres above ground level. The existing trees along the frontage boundaries have been
indicated to be retained. Picket fence
along the frontage boundary has also been removed with all these works being
carried out to improve visibility from the new access. All these works have now been carried out within
the curtilage of the application.
Application is
accompanied by a detailed report prepared by a consulting engineer and a copy
of that report is attached as an appendix. A report was commissioned following
the concerns expressed by the Highways Authority bearing in mind the proximity
of the access to the mini roundabout to the north forming the junctions of High
Street/Priory Road High Street and Clatterford Street. In the main report relates to visibility issues
particularly to the southwest. Report
is summarised as follows.
a
No recorded accidents associated with the site
b
Traffic counts indicate daily two way flows in
Clatterford Road around 3000-3500 vehicles per day based on figures taken in
October 2001. Consistent recorded
speeds of 34-35 miles per hour in both directions. Those speeds both likely to be lower in the vicinity of the site where traffic is slowing down to
negotiate the bend and junctions.
c
Speed measurements taken using radar speed gun with
a speed of northeast bound vehicles measured approximately 90 metres away. Readings indicated approach speeds of around
32 miles per hour for the northeast bound (Newport bound) traffic and 16 miles
per hour for southwest bound (Shorwell bound) traffic.
d
Advisory document "Places, Streets and
Movements" would indicate on the above speeds a requirement for a 26 metre
visibility space for the northwest and a 70 metre towards the southwest.
e
When applied to site circumstances and assuming
"X" distance of 2.4 metres the following applies;
·
31 metres of visibility available to the northeast
towards the junction (mini roundabout) and therefore adequate for the measured
speeds.
·
40 metre visibility available to the southwest in
respect of land in the control of the applicants. That distance could be
increased 52 metres if accounts taken of visibility through the front boundary
fence of the adjoining property. Therefore visibility to towards the southwest
is below standard.
·
In view of the above a detailed plan of vehicle
movement was considered and following observations were noted;
·
Newport bound traffic rarely approaches on the
wrong side of the road at this point. A large number of cars parked along
southeastern side of Clatterford Road. Road generally operates with alternate
single line working with gaps being used as passing places.
·
If visibility line extended to meet centre line of
Clatterford Road then approaching vehicles come into view at 90 metres or more
from the site access.
·
On street parking occurs on the southwest of the
road outside 17-19 Clatterford Road, 82 metres from the access. Overtaking is virtually impossible resulting
in a situation where, when they reach the unobstructed two line carriageway
close to the site Newport bound drivers are aware they are approaching the bend
and the junction with any vehicles waiting to leave the site being clearly
visibility.
·
Newport bound vehicles tend to slow down as they
approach the access point, Group reading indicating speeds of 18-20 mile per
hour being norm.
f
Client prepared to construct new footway across
site frontage without removing trees which would provide significant highway
safety benefits.
g
Applicant's Engineer points states that the rear
access to the vicarage has existed for many years with substandard visibility
with there being no evidence that this use has been a factor in any road
traffic accident. Proposal will improve
visibility significantly allowing two vehicles to pass and to enter or leave
the site without difficulty in either directions. Also reference made to alterations made to driveway levels to
reduce steep gradient.
h
Based on past studies each flat is likely to
generate between 4.5 and 6 two-way vehicular and movements a day and giving
45-60 movements in total. No figures exist
for site for the vicarage use although would be less than quoted above. It is pointed out however that vicarage's
generally include a study or intend to be used for meeting parishers / house
groups etc and would therefore have generated more traffic than average
households.
Reports conclude
as follows;
"In an urban
situation such as this drivers are generally on the lookout for wide variety of
hazards such as vehicles leaving private driveways, pedestrians crossing the
road, buses stopping etc. Vehicles
entering and leaving the established vicarage access would not come as a
surprise to local drivers who are also accustomised to avoiding people walking
in the carriageway at this point. Whilst the use of entrance will increase, the
overall number of movements will still not be great, the entrance width
visibility and grading will be improved and a new section of footway will
provide a significant safety improvement for pedestrians".
"The advice
contained in 'Places, Streets and Movements' (regarding the imposition of
visibility stands as is)
"the guidance
.... needs to be assessed in the circumstances in each case. Site lines should
never be reduced to a level where danger is likely to be caused."
"Adopting
this approach whilst visibility display does not fully meet the normal
requirements for a new access it can be argued that the development will result
in a net highway safety benefit and the council is requested to make this
discussion accordingly".
The difference in
respect of this proposal to that of the withdrawn application is parking
provision which is now set at a total of 14 spaces with four of those spaces
being provided to the front of the premises, a single space at the side
(northeast) and nine spaces set to the rear all as previously described.
In terms of impact
on trees the proposal indicates retention of four of the existing five trees
within the frontage area of the site, these being 2 yew, 1 bay and 1 chestnut
tree. Adjacent to the rear of the site proposed indicates retention of 3 of the
4 major trees in this area 2 being located adjacent the western boundary and 1
yew tree being retained in the eastern area of the site with the formation of
the proposed 3.6metre wide driveway will involve of the loss of another yew
tree.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN /
POLICY
Site stands within
the Carisbrooke Conservation Area, with the southwestern boundary forming the
edge of that Conservation Area. Site also stands within the development
envelope boundary and is situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
National policies
are covered in PPG3 - housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows.
In relation to
current application the document states the following: "Conversions of housing, buildings formerly in other uses and
the upper floor spaces over shops can provide an important source of additional
housing, particularly in town centres."
It emphasises that
Local Plannings should promote such conversions by taking a more flexible approach
to Development Plan standards with regards to densities, car parking, amenity
space and overlooking.
Other general
policies within the document are summarised as follows.
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 greenfield sites.
Create
more sustainable patterns of development, ensuring accessibility by public
transport to jobs, education and health facilities, etc.
Make
more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units
per hectare quoted as being appropriate level of density.
Document
advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation but
should have regards to immediate buildings and wider locally.
More
than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government's
emphasis on sustainable residential development.
PPG15 - Planning
and the Historic Environment covers issues relating to development within or
adjacent to conservation areas, and relevant points are as follows.
New
Buildings should be carefully designed to respect their setting following
fundamental architectural principles of scale, height, massing and alignment
and use of appropriate materials.
Document
emphasises that developer has a duty of care to ensure proposed developments in
Conservation Areas both preserve or enhance those areas.
PPG13 - Transport
the relevant issues are of which follows.
Promote
more sustainable transport of both people and moving freight.
Promote
accessibility to jobs, shops, leisure facilities, services by public transport,
walking and cycling.
Reduce
the need to travel by car.
Reference is also made
to 'Places, Streets and Movements' (a companion guide to Design Bulletin 32
Residential Roads and Footpaths).
Advice contained in this document should be seen in the context of the
wider national policies and initiatives aimed at achieving attractive
sustainable residential areas and settlements through better design.
In terms of site
lines and road junctions document emphasises that site lines should never be
reduced to a level where danger is likely to be caused, however it does state
that each situation needs to be assessed on its own merits. Document provides advice in terms of 'X'
dimension (minor road distance) and more significantly 'Y' dimension (major
road distance). The 'X' dimensions are
based on road speeds.
Relevant Local
Plan policies are as follows.
Strategic
Policies S1, S2, S6, S7 are appropriate.
Other relevant
polices are as follows.
G1 -
Development Envelopes for Town and Villages
G4 -
General Locational Criteria for Development
D1 -
Standard of Design
D2 -
Standards for Development within the Site
B6 -
Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
C2 -
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
TR17 -
Parking Policies and Guidelines
TR7 -
Highway Considerations for New Development
U2 - Ensuring
Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the Future Population
L10 -
Open Space in Housing Development
B8 -
Alterations and Extensions of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas.
Site is located
within Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which restricts parking
to 0 to 75% of the maximum non-operational vehicle parking provisions.
Reference is also
made to Housing Needs Survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for
single person accommodation although there continues to be an ongoing demand
for two or three bedroom units to meet statutory homeless requirements.
The Roman Villa
referred to above is a Grade 1 Listed Building.
CONSULTEE COMMENTS
Highway
engineer recommend refusal on the following grounds.
Proposed
development is likely to lead to increased use of the existing access to the
classified B road and would add unduly to hazards of highway users and would
therefore be contrary to policy TR7 (Highway consideration for new development)
for Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
The
access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of
unacceptable visibility and would therefore be contrary to policy TR7 (Highway
consideration for new development) for Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
As the scheme in
architectural design terms is the same as that which was withdrawn the
Conservation team is in general supportive of the design approach with
particular reference to the extension, provided good quality matching materials
are used including the provision of timber windows.
AONB Officer
raises similar comments to those raised in terms of the withdrawn application
which are quoted as follows.
This is
a landmark building in Carisbrooke, which along with the church dominates the
surrounding area. This is particularly
clear when viewing this area from Carisbrooke Castle as can be seen in the
attached photograph. Whilst we appreciate this site lies within the development
boundary for Newport and that in the main proposal is relatively sympathetic in
design, we do have strong reservations that the scale of the proposed
alterations will result in detracting from the overall character and history of
this distinctive building.
Council Archeology
Officer recommends an appropriate condition requiring the submission of a
written scheme of investigations securing the implementation of a programme of
historic buildings and facilitating of monitoring of on-site archaeological
works, notification of start date and appointed archaeological contractor be
provided not less than 14 days before the commencing of any work start.
She is also
anxious to be assured that the access which has been agreed with the Council
who have a 21 year old freehold lease is retained and that the removal of the
fence panel and the alterations of the access will not inhibit such public
access.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Carisbrooke
West Community forum object to the application on the following grounds:-
Because
of the sensitive location of the building ie conservation area, historic
village and within an AONB any change of use should be resisted.
Concern
the proposal with particular reference to the extension is within the grounds
of a Roman Villa which is a Grade 1 Listed building and the proposal fails to
respect this location with particular reference to the enlargement of the
building.
Proposal
for the 10 flats will result in an unacceptable increase in traffic generation
using the access which is close to a dangerous corner and bus stop.
Level
of car parking provision will have an unacceptable visual impact.
Additional
pressures placed on existing drainage systems.
Proposal
does not show alternative fire escapes which would be unacceptable if they were
in the form of an external staircase.
Reference
made lack of information in terms of fire and sound proofing.
Ground
floor element of the proposal does not have access to natural light at the
front and the side of the building.
Proposal
to construct a timber framed extension in the Conservation Area is considered
inappropriate.
Detailed
assessment needs to be made on the trees on the site.
Application
been subject of 8 individual letters of objection from local residents which essentially
reiterate the points raised above but also raise and re-enforce the following
points:
All
letters refer to the generation of traffic with particular reference to the
safety of the access and the inadequate visibility. Such a situation is exacerbated by the level of use of
Clatterford Road by all types of traffic.
Reference
made to the appointment of a consultant by the applicant who will not have
taken account of a newly planted privet hedge on the adjoining property's front
garden which will further reduce the availability of visibility.
Reference
made to the advantages of a public footpath formed across the frontage of the
application site would be negated by the location of the above mentioned hedge
requiring people then to cross the road thus increasing dangers to pedestrians.
Proposal
considered to be over development with reference to the proposed extension
creating a building that would be out of character with the area with
particular reference to the Conservation Area and AONB status of the area.
Concern
that residents of the development may have direct access to the Ancient
Monument (Roman Villa) which could lead to disturbance and destruction of that
monument.
Particular
concern expressed regarding loss of trees in particular reference to a large
chestnut tree which is in close proximity to the proposed extension.
Neighbouring
property to the southwest expresses particular concern regarding potential loss
of privacy, loss of light and increase in noise, emissions associated with the
use of the car parking areas.
Similar
concerns expressed by property owners which adjoin to the northeast in terms of
environmental impact to the proposal.
Concerns
that the 14 parking spaces being provided are insufficient and could result in
increase pressures on on-street parking in Clatterford Road.
A
number of letter writers expressed guarded support for the principle of
conversion of the existing building to seven flats and the provision of a front
path to the frontage boundary.
Application
has also been the subject of a 35 signature petition signed by in the main
Newport residents.
CRIME &
DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime and
disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
As implied above
this is the second application for this development following the withdrawal of
the previous application. The reason
for that withdrawal was the fact that the highway engineer was recommending
refusal and the applicant wanted an opportunity to carry out a detailed
assessment of those reasons for refusal and to establish whether or not they
could be addressed in any way and therefore be overcome. I will deal with the issue of access and
visibility as part of the following evaluation. The proposal itself has proved
particularly contentious in respect of other issues relating to design, impact
on the character of the area, impact on neighbouring property, drainage and
landscaping issues all of which are addressed as follows.
Principle
There is no doubt
that this is a substantial typical vicarage dwelling and as such is appropriate
for conversion. It would be very
difficult to resist the principle of conversion into flats for there are many
examples of successful conversions which provide a valuable source of much needed
accommodation as identified in the Housing Needs Survey.
It should also be
note that national policy within PPG encourages conversions as a valuable
source of additional housing particularly in town centres.
Design & Scale
A more contentious
issue is the proposed three storey extension to provide a further 3 flats. The main concern in this respect will be
whether or not the mass and height of the extension is appropriately
proportioned and is therefore subservient to the original building. Obviously
the appropriateness of mass and height will vary dependent upon the overall
scale and impact on the original building. In this case both the Conservation
Officers and myself are of the view that the extension proposed is in
proportion in terms of its mass and height and therefore as a matter of
principle is considered to be acceptable.
The position of
the vicarage building on the edge of the Conservation Area does tend to result
on it being slightly divorced from the main urban element of the Conservation
Area. The character of the Conservation
Area in terms of the built environment is to a large extent restricted to
Carisbrooke High Street, and therefore I would suggest that any assessment of
the suitability of the extension should be based on its impact on the building
as opposed to the general impact it may have on the Conservation Area.
Impact on
Neighbouring Properties
I do have some
concern regarding the closer proximity of the extension to the adjoining
property and its curtilage, which adjoins to the southwest. Whilst I consider the
distance from the curtilage, which is interrupted by a vehicular access as
previously described, is sufficient to avoid any impact in terms of outlook,
there may be an overlooking problem from those windows which face in that
direction. The windows in all cases are secondary windows, with the main
windows being located on the front and rear elevations to the individual rooms.
I would therefore consider that if Members are mindful to approve the
application it would be appropriate in this case to apply a condition requiring
the insertion of obscure glazing in each of the windows facing in that
direction, which would be sufficient to avoid any direct overlooking. I would
also suggest an appropriate landscaping condition requiring some additional
planting along the boundary, both in front of the extension and beyond towards
the rear. This will not only provide additional screening but will also
contribute to the overall landscape setting of the building.
In terms of the
concerns being expressed regarding general disturbance that may be caused by
the use of the gravel finished car park area whilst obviously some noise will
emit from this area during a parking procedures I do not consider that it would
be either at a level or regular enough to represent a sustainable reason to
refuse the application. The
introduction of some appropriately located landscaping would assist to a small
degree in reducing impact.
Drainage
Concerns expressed
regarding the possibility of additional pressures on the drainage systems
causing disturbance or damage to the listed structure are noted, however again
I would suggest an appropriate condition requiring a detailed scheme to be
submitted which should clearly illustrate the function of the drainage schemes
and which should obviously be designed
to avoid the above-mentioned concerns.
In terms of
drainage generally because of the levels there is a strong likelihood that the
drainage would have to be pumped via a rising main in order to discharge into
Clatterford Road. Obviously this would
need to be looked at in some detail however I am satisfied that an appropriate
condition can cover this issue.
Landscaping
For information
three of the trees on the site are the subject of individual Tree Preservation
Orders, two are in the frontage area of the site being the existing chestnut
yew tree with the remaining tree being towards the rear abutting the western
boundary and being a further chestnut tree.
None of these trees are shown to be removed as a result of this propose,
and this proposal itself indicates removal of only two trees. The removal of
the shrubbery on the frontage boundary has not impinged on the retention of the
chestnut tree which abuts that area.
On the above
whilst there will be some impact on existing landscape the proposal obviously
provides an opportunity for replacement landscaping appropriately sited to both
provide a monetary value and screening.
Access to the
Roman Villa
I am advised that
the Isle of Wight Council currently holds a 21 year old freehold lease (signed
in 1990) to a strip of land set approximately 6 metres of the rear eastern
corner of the existing property and thence running in a southeasterly direction
adjacent to the eastern boundary providing pedestrian right of way to the
Carisbrooke Roman Villa.
A copy of the
lease plan also indicates a right of way which abuts the remaining northeastern
boundary. However according to that plan and the information provided that right
of way is outside the ownership of the applicant and in fact is leased by the
Council from Medina Housing Association.
A site inspection and submitted plans indicate two parallel fencing lines 1.8 metres apart as previously
described which represents the above mentioned right of way. However that right of way has been indicated
to being the ownership of the applicant.
The main planning
consideration is to ensure that any new development either retains or is
capable of retaining a right of way facility given the fact that the Council is
committed to retaining public access to this nationally important
archaeological site. Current proposal
is the removal of the inner fence whilst retaining the actual boundary fence
the proposal also indicates the proposed 3.6 metre wide driveway which apart
from 400 millimetre margin is indicated to be constructed to the boundary.
Therefore the submitted plan does not refer to the rights of the public to pass
over that 3.6 metre wide driveway to gain access to the archaeological site.
This does obviously cause some concern and would in this instant represent a
reason for refusal. It is important
however to suggest that adjustments to the layout could be achieved which could
incorporate both a footpath and the driveway although careful attention would
need to be paid to both the width of the footpath and separating the footpath
from the driveway. However the current plan fails to indicate how this can be
achieved.
Finally on this
issue members are advised that the County Archaeologist is currently working
with the English Heritage to produce a conservation plan for the archaeological
site which aims to develop the educational, public and community use of the
site.
Access and Parking
Members will note
that the issue of access has been the subject of detailed assessment by the
applicants given the particular circumstances of Clatterford Road. Members will
note that this has been explained in considerable detail in the applicants
consultants report.
This is purely an
issue of safety with visibility to the southwest being the chief cause of
concern.
Although we have
had no written statement from the highway engineer he clearly does not agree
with the points raised by the consultant and is recommending refusal on the grounds
indicated. This is such a technical issue and whilst the consultants comments
may have some merit I have no option but to concur with the highways engineer's
views and therefore I recommend refusal to this application for those reasons.
In terms of
parking provision the proposal provides for 14 parking spaces which provides an
average of 1.4 spaces per unit. This level of parking is entirely in accordance
with local and national policies. Also the parking spaces have been split
between the front and the rear and as such will be capable of surveillance from
both directions. I am therefore satisfied that in parking provision terms the
proposal is acceptable.
Financial
contributions
If Members were to
approve the application I would suggest that it should be subject of S106
Agreement providing for financial contribution which in this case would be
restricted to an open space and recreational contribution of Ł2900 (10 times
Ł290), and a possible educational contribution dependant on the capacity available
in local schools.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to
the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol
(Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on
Human Rights. The impacts this
development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due
regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in
the Evaluation section of this report I consider refusal of the application as
appropriate due to the inadequacy of the access with particular reference to
visibility and the failure to indicate access to the ancient monument. I do
consider however remaining elements of the application are acceptable in the
use of a large dwelling along with the extension providing density of
accommodation which would contribute to the housing stock and will assist in
satisfying a housing need. I also consider that the curtilage is capable of
accommodating the overall development and matters of concern could be
adequately be dealt with by way of condition or legal agreement.
RECOMMENDATION - Refusal
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1. |
The
proposed development will be likely to lead to an increased use of the
existing access on to a classified B road which would add unduly to the hazards
to highway users and is therefore contrary to policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development) at the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
2. |
The
access is unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of
unacceptable visibility to the southwest and is therefore contrary to the
policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) at the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3. |
The
application fails to indicate how provision of the public pedestrian footpath
to the Roman Villa (Grade 1 Listed) is to be retained and therefore the
proposal is considered to be contrary to the policy B9 (Protection of
Archaeological Heritage) of Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6. |
TCP/26302/A P/01507/04 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes South Registration
Date: 14/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr O Cohen & Mr R Gregory Demolition of
rear single storey extension & conservatory; construction of rear extension & conversion of dwelling to
form 2 flats, (revised scheme) 70 Adelaide
Grove, East Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO326DD |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is
a minor application that has attracted a number of letters of representation. In addition the Local Member, Cllr Muriel
Miller lives in close proximity to the dwelling, potentially giving rise to a
conflict of interests.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is
a minor application, the processing of which has taken nine weeks to date, and
has gone beyond the eight-week period for determination of planning
applications due to the need for the proposal to be determined by the
Development Control Committee.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The
dwelling is located within East Cowes, in an area typified by residential
development. The property in question
is an end of terrace 3-storey house that forms an integral part of the
character and street scene within the locality. There is a modulation of
design, appearance and type of dwelling along Adelaide Grove, not having a
specific uniformity.
The
front elevation of the building gives the appearance of a two storey property,
but due to the topography of the land the property is three storey to the rear.
The
parking provision within the area is accommodated along Adelaide Grove, with
little provision for off street parking.
A public right of way runs to the north side of the property and
connects Adelaide Grove to Kings Road.
Currently the gable wall that forms the boundary to the footpath is
completely closed, with no openings being apparent.
The
rear gardens of the terrace development has a uniform length of around 22m,
dependent on the numerous amount of extensions to the properties which have
developed over time. Many gardens have
ancillary sheds and good boundary screens that designate curtilages well. The house in question only has a 1m fence
that divides the boundary between the neighbouring property and the public
footpath. The rear of houses along
Adelaide Grove face the rear elevations and gardens of Kings Road, which are
similar properties located at a lower gradient to that of Adelaide Grove.
The
property has had a previous ground floor rear extension constructed under
Permitted Development Rights. The
relatively small extension, although not being of any architectural merit does
not materially affect the character or setting of the host property.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
TCP/26302
– Planning permission for demolition of rear single storey extension and
conservatory; construction of rear extension and construction of dwelling to
form 2 flats including new external staircase and roof garden. Refused 25 July
2004 for the following reasons:.
i
The construction of an external staircase and
balcony on the rear elevation would result in a detrimental development,
affecting the amenities and privacy of adjoining residential properties.
j
The proposed flat roof extension would be an
intrusive addition, out of scale and character with existing properties having a
serious and adverse impact to the visual amenities in the locality.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Following
refusal of the previous application, further negotiations with the applicant
and architect have resulted in the omission of the external staircase and roof
garden (that accessed the first floor flat), reduced the footprint on the rear
single storey extension, created a communal garden area rather than
sub-division and placed a grill in front of the patio doors on the upper ground
floor to form an access barrier.
The
proposals involves demolition of the rear single storey extension and
conservatory and construct a rear single storey extension, giving additional
living accommodation, and facilitating the conversion into two self contained
flats.
There
are a number of proposed minor alterations.
Firstly, the proposed involves access to flat two via a door accessed
off the public footpath running to the north of the dwelling. There are also three windows within this
gable elevation, serving two bedrooms and a bathroom. The overall heights of the windows vary according to the slope of
the footpath, but ranges from 1.2m to 1.6m.
The
flat roof rear extension protrudes 4.9m and has two high level windows on the
northern elevation. A set of French
doors forms an access into the rear of the extension. The southern elevation is completely closed, forming the boundary
with the adjoining property, No 72 Adelaide Grove. The extension projects 700mm beyond single storey rear extension
to adjacent property, which is designed with the same characteristics as the
proposal, albeit slightly higher.
A set
of French doors (for the purposes of light) replaces an existing window at
upper ground floor level, including a grill at 1.1m high, forming a barrier to
stop residents accessing the flat roof (to the rear extension). An additional small window is proposed at 1st
floor level serving a bathroom, while a velux window would be placed within the
pitch of the roof, allowing extra light to enter this space.
All
other aspects to the host property remain as existing. Both flats would have use of the communal
garden to the rear with on street parking arrangement along Adelaide Grove.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The
application is within the development boundary of East Cowes, but is not within
an area designated under special control contained within the Unitary
Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are
considered to be as follows:
S6 - High Standard of Design
S7 - Meeting Housing Stock of Plan
Period
G1- Development Envelopes for Towns
G4
- General Locational Criteria
D1 - Standards of Design
H7
- Extensions and Alterations
TR7 - Highway Considerations For New
Development
TR16 - Parking Policies and
Guidelines
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway
Engineer raises no objection
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
East
Cowes Town Council do not support the application. It was deemed that two self-contained units would increase problems
with the restricted parking within Adelaide Grove. It would also set a precedent for other properties within the
street.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Application
has attracted two letters from local residents objecting to application on grounds
that can be summarised as follows:
CRIME
AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime
and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
The
application to convert the dwelling into two flats must be considered in
relation to meeting the housing stock within policy S7 (Meeting Housing Stock of Plan Period) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 3
(Housing). PPG3 encourages new
dwellings to be located within existing town boundaries, providing a range of
accommodation as well as intensifying the number of urban dwellings and thus
stopping the urban sprawl into the countryside. Even though the proposal only
creates one additional unit within the locality, members should give weight to
this material consideration.
In
respect of the above, polices contained with the Unitary Development Plan support
this type of development. The real
overriding factor to the application would be whether the conversion would
unduly affect the amenities of the area, prejudice neighbouring properties or
degrade the localised environment.
The
insertion of the doors and windows into the northern gable of the dwelling,
being accessed off the public footpath would not unduly affect the amenities of
the area. The relatively narrow
footpath has no specific merit and faces a closed gable wall to No 68 Adelaide
Grove. Should Members be reminded to
approve the application, the doors and windows can be conditioned to open
inwards, which will not impact on any users of the footpath, causing no
apparent dangers. The bathroom window can
also be conditioned to have obscure glazing, protecting the amenities of
potential occupiers of the property.
Turning
to the rear extension, consideration should be given to the scale, mass and
design, and any reasonable loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The scale and mass represent a reasonable
size extension that does not prejudice the host property. It is similar to other development within
the area, only being 700mm larger than that of the rear extension to the
neighbouring property. A letter of
representation states that this would block an element of light entering their
property. Given the limited projection
of beyond the rear wall of the neighbouring extension, it is not considered
that the proposal would result in significant or unacceptable loss of light.
The two high level windows on the Northern elevation will not cause any loss of
amenity whatsoever.
The
French doors at upper ground floor level, replace an existing window. These doors serve a kitchen to flat 2. Concern has been expressed that these doors
would encourage people to use the roof of the extension as a seating area. The proposed grill across the opening, gives
a physical barrier that allows extra light to enter the building. In case of a fire, these doors can be
utilised, giving an additional form of escape to any persons present within the
building. Although there are no steps
off from the flat roof extension, the drop off the roof is insignificant and
provides a means of escape. Members
should note that the recommended conditions include a restriction that the roof
of the extension is not to be used at any time as a balcony or sun terrace.
The two
additional windows located on the rear elevations, one being within the roof
pitch and the other serving a bathroom on the first floor do not
adversely affect the character or appearance of the building, amenities of the
area and reasonable enjoyment to neighbours.
There
has been concern that the development will set a precedent for developments of
a similar nature. Each application is
deemed on its own merits, while the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan
encourages a variety, mix and size of residential properties.
Highways
have raised no objection on the application, and, in particular, have raised no
concerns with regard to the current parking situation. This is a concern of
local resident, but it is argued that the additional units will only cause a
minimal net increase to the parking requirement within the area.
The
sub-division of this dwelling will add to the housing stock and potentially
give more chance for other people looking for more affordable accommodation.
The amenity space provided for the two flats is accommodated via a communal
area. This was deemed to be the best
option, as the sub-division of the garden would be inappropriate as it is
narrow and not conducive to splitting.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR DECISION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report, it is considered that, having regard to the spatial
relationship of the proposal with nearby residential properties, the increase
in housing stock within the area and the minimal alterations to the host
property the application is in accordance with national, strategic and local
policies, and would not adversely affect the sustainability of the area or
prejudice the localised environment.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of
the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts
this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the
area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with
the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it
is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the
applicant. It is also considered that
such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
Matching
materials - S01 |
|
3 |
The
door and windows on the Northern elevation hereby approved shall open inwards
at all times, unless prior written approval has been granted by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: in the interest of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight
Unitary Development Plan |
|
4 |
The
bathroom window located on the lower ground floor in the northern elevation
shall be non-opening and obscure glazed, and shall be retained as such
thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring
property and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Balconies - R05 |
|
7. |
TCP/26352 P/01009/04 Parish/Name:
Godshill Ward: Wroxall and
Godshill Registration
Date: 07/05/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mr & Mrs D R Wood Stable block
comprising 2 stables, tack room, bedding store & hay barn OS parcel 8400,
land off, Lessland Lane, Sandford, Ventnor, PO38 |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
This is
a minor application that has attracted a number of letters of representation.
Furthermore, during recent discussions the local member, Cllr Yates expressed
concern that the stables would be located in an open field and would therefore
constitute an undesirable intrusion into the rural landscape. A number of stables within the locality are
leading to a proliferation of stable buildings, and loss of agricultural land,
as a result of which he requested that application is considered by the
Committee.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is
a minor application, the processing of which has taken eleven weeks to date,
and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of
planning applications, due to the need for consideration by the Development
Control Committee.
LOCATION
& SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The 2.8
ha site is located along Lessland Lane, Sandford. The area is typified by a
strong agricultural presence, with the land being designated as Grade II
agricultural land. Lessland Lane is an
unclassified highway that is lined with good hedge screening. There are small isolated developments within
the area, namely a number of isolated houses that are found along the course of
the road.
There
are three houses located opposite the application site. A gap of 30m divides
the closest dwelling (Green Acres Farm). This space is divided via Lessland
Lane and two dense hedge boundaries.
The access to the site is off Lessland Lane, being a former access for
farming machinery.
The
land itself, formerly used for arable farming, has been sold as a separate
parcel. The site is not level with the
land sloping from the south to the north, towards Lessland Lane and the three
houses. The site is completely
surrounded by a hedge boundary that fluctuates from 1.8 m to 2m+, typified
hawthorn and blackthorn. A drainage
ditch of 1m also surrounds the site, irrigating and protecting the houses and
road from surface runoff. Lessland Lane
runs along the north and western boundary of the site, while to the south and
eastern boundary adjoins other parcels of agricultural land (divided by similar
hedge growth) that has also been recently sold, each of which are of similar
size. A public footpath (Godshill-GL29)
runs along the eastern perimeter of the site and connects to Lessland Lane.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
None
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
Initial
plans submitted with the application placed the structure at 90 degrees to the
northern hedge boundary, making the structure face a north-south
direction. This was deemed not to suit
the rural setting, as the development would not take advantage of the natural
screening of the land, resulting in an obtrusive feature to the landscape.
Following
negotiation revised plans were submitted, turning the structure 90 degrees, so
the main elevation faces and is screened by the hedge running along the
perimeter of Lessland Lane. Revised
plans also took into account advice received from the Highways Authority,
removing a small section of hedgerow at the entrance to the site, (north-east corner)
in order to provide adequate visibility.
The
application comprises of two stables, one tack room, one bedding store and a
hay barn. The overall length of the structure is 16.78 metres and runs in an
east-west direction following the perimeter boundary. The overall height of the stables is 3.1 metres. The external
surface materials use brown stained shiplap boarding and a green onduline
roofing material.
The
siting of the stables is 7 metres off the boundary, allowing adequate distance
for the surrounding drainage ditch that encircles the field. A parking and turning facility had been
proposed at the entrance to the site, enclosed via a wooden fence. This fence
also separates a 5 metre gap from the eastern boundary, providing a walkway for
the public footpath.
Members
should note that after a site visit on the 12 August 2004, the field has been
divided into smaller parcels via a 1.2m wooden fence. A letter from the agent on the 3 August 2004 states that the client
wishes to graze sheep on parts of the land on a rotational basis, keeping the
land from falling fallow. Parts of the
land shown on plan 2289/02/04 for parking and turning, plus the concrete hard
standing for the stables itself have already been constructed.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
The
site is outside the development boundary but is not on or near specifically
designated or protected land. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan
are considered to be as follows:
S4 -
Countryside protected from inappropriate development
S6 -
High Standard of Design
S15 –
Important natural resources, including water and best agricultural land will be
safeguarded
G4 -
General Locational Criteria
G5 -
Development Outside Defined Settlements
D1 - Standards of Design
TR7 -
Highway Considerations For New Development
C1 -
Protection of Landscape Character
C13 –
Hedgerows
C14 –
Safeguard Best Agricultural Land
C22 –
Development involving horses
C23 -
Stables and field shelters in the Countryside
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
Highway
Engineer recommends approval subject to conditions.
PARISH/TOWN
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Godshill
Parish Council has no objection to this proposal, as the development is
compatible with the local rural area.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Application
has attracted six letters from local residents and voluntary groups objecting
to application on grounds that can be summarised as follows:
·
Any development on the land will affect the public
footpath (GL29) and the rights of way of people
·
Turns a grassy headland into a hard surface
·
The structure is visible from the public right of
way and highway, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the countryside
·
There will be a conflict between horse riders and
vehicle users along Lessland Lane
·
An application within the adjacent field will lead
to over development of horticulture, spoiling the visual amenities of the
countryside
·
Drainage is required for the development. Silting of land across Lessland Lane
·
Properties located adjacent the site are at a lower
gradient, while the application form states that there is no change in level
·
No mention within the application in reference to
slope stability and ground movement
CRIME
AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime
and disorder implications anticipated.
EVALUATION
The
parcel of land measuring 2.8 ha is located in a rural location, adjacent to
three houses. Lessland Lane separates
the two forms of development but still forms a reasonable grouping of development
within the rural setting. The siting is
not unduly isolated in comparison to other built forms in the locality. The applicant initially wanted stables to be
placed in a field to the South of the site but it was deemed to be isolated and
an incongruous feature within the countryside. The applicant therefore withdrew
the application. There was concern by
the Local Member that there have been similar developments within the area,
leading to a proliferation of stables, unduly affecting the rural setting. On a site visit there was no visible evidence
of other established 'horsiculture' uses within the area, retaining most of the
land for agricultural purposes.
Initial
plans wanted the stables to be placed in a position that was deemed not to be
sympathetic to the rural characteristics, being placed a right angles to the
existing hedge boundary. In
consultation with the agent, revised plans placed the structure with the main
elevation running parallel to the boundary, offering a better screen and
natural barrier, protecting the amenities of the locality.
The
stables are 3.1metres tall. The height
will not adversely affect the amenities of the area as the hedge boundary of 2
metres plus will only reveal 1 metre of a shallow pitched roof that is clad
with sympathetic materials for the locality.
This hedge screens remaining elevations of the building. The entrance to the site, accessed off
Lessland Lane is located in the northeast corner of the field. The only direction in which views can be
seen into the site is travelling in a southerly direction along Lessland
Lane. These views will be of a
limestone hard standing and associated fence that encloses the parking and
turning facility. These views into the site will it is considered be
insignificant, not spoiling the rural setting and rural character of the
area. Highways recommend approval on
the application as the visibility splay and access is in accordance with their
requirements, ensuring highway safety.
In
consultation with MAFF, the loss of 2.8 ha is not deemed to be contentious or
prejudice the overall farming operation in replacement for horsiculture.
Members should note that the actual impact from the development is relatively
small in comparison with the field size, retaining a large proportion of land
that can in the future be returned to agriculture if so required. The potential of the land is therefore
retained for agriculture, not prejudicing farming operations. Planning Policy
Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) quotes “equestrian
activities are popular forms of recreation in the countryside that can fit in
well with farming activities”. PPS7
indicates that best agricultural land (Grade I - II) (I and 2) should be
protected from significant development.
This application is not deemed to be significant or an intrusion into
the countryside and will not affect the long-term sustainability of future
farming operations.
A
number of letters of representation state that the public footpath will be
affected by this development. The site
visit, established that the footpath has been retained and protected, as the
applicant as constructed a fence running along the length of the section
separating the two uses. This has not
lead to any visual intrusion to the countryside, but has actually given a
distinctive footpath that identifies this use well.
There
was also concern that the development would turn a grassy headland into a hard
surface, being incongruous with the countryside. The level of hard surface is minimal, mostly being screened by
the natural growth of the land. The
nature of the topography retains the land as a grassy headland, especially from
the view point of Lessland Lane or any other built form in the area.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other
property in the area and other third parties have been carefully
considered. Whilst there may be some
interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the
rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights
and freedom of the applicant. It is
also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the
Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR DECISION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report, it is considered that, having regard to the spatial
relationship of the proposal with nearby residential properties together with
the acceptable screening qualities of boundary hedgerows and the acceptable
access arrangements the proposal will not prejudice the long term
sustainability of farming operations on the land, being deemed to be
appropriate development within this rural setting.
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit -
full - A10 |
|
2 |
No development
shall take place until details of the materials and finishes to be used in
the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
3 |
Prior
to the construction of the stables hereby approved, details of the surface
water drainage system across the access to the site shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the drainage
system shall thereafter by completed before the use hereby permitted comes
into operation. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policies C1 (Protection of the Landscape Character), TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and U11
(Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
4 |
Notwithstanding
the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with
or without modification), no gates other than gates that are set back a
minimum distance of 8 metres from the edge of the carriageway of the
adjoining highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
5 |
The
development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided
within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward
gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such a
use. Reason:
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway
Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
6 |
The
access across the existing watercourse running along the northern boundary of
the site shall be bridged in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing
with the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented
and completed prior to commencement of the use hereby permitted. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and D1 (Standards
of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
7 |
The
stables shall only be used for the stabling of horses and the storage of
associated equipment and feed for private recreational purposes only and shall
at no time be used for any trade or business including livery stabling,
commercial equestrian tuition or commercial leisure rides. Reason: The use of the stables on a commercial basis
is likely to lead to an increased use of the premises and generation of
additional traffic which would be detrimental to the amenities of the area
and to comply with policy C22 (Keeping of Horses for Recreational Purposes)
of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Stables - no
caravans, etc - F31 |
|
9 |
Stables - no
outside storage - F32 |
|
10 |
Prior
to the use hereby permitted, details of the disposal of manure and other
ancillary waste shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The manure and waste material shall not be placed within 10 metres
of any watercourse, but shall be contained or removed within a specified area
to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the use coming into
operation. Reason:
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with
Policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C12 (Development
Involving Horses) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Notwithstanding
the provision(s) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order
with or without modification) no gates, fences, walls or other means of
enclosure shall be erected on the land other than those expressly authorised
by this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing to the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and
character of the area and to comply with policy C22 (Keeping of Horses for
Recreational Purposes) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
12 |
No
jumps or similar structures shall be constructed or placed on the land at any
time other than those expressly authorised by this permission unless otherwise
agreed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and
character of the area and to comply with policy C22 (Keeping of Horses for
Recreational Purposes) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8. |
TCP/26427 P/01384/04 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell Registration
Date: 28/06/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. H. Byrne Tel: (01983) 823594 Applicant: Mr & Mrs G Cooper Demolition of
workshop; retention of hard standing
with associated retaining walls;
alterations to vehicular access & replacement workshop The Old Radio
Station, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382NB |
REASON
FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Report has
been requested by local Member, Cllr J White as she is not prepared to agree to
the application to be dealt with under the delegated procedure. Reasons for this request are:
·
The site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, there are concerns about materials used and the size of the workshop.
·
The instability of the ground in the area which has
been a matter of concern for some years to residents.
·
The Radio Station is of interest to the village of
Niton and in the opinion of the Local Member a bit of discussion is required on
this application in order that those who know this area are informed as to what
is proposed.
PROCESSING
INFORMATION
This is
a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 11 weeks to the
date of the Committee meeting. The
processing of the application has exceeded the prescribed 8 week period for the
determination of planning applications due to the need for Committee
consideration.
LOCATION
AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Application
relates to a detached property on an unmade bridleway in Niton Undercliff,
leading to Niton beach. Property is
located within large garden area that rises gently in a northerly direction
away from house. The dwelling is in a slightly elevated position from road
level. Boundary treatment in the area
is predominantly natural growth.
However this property and neighbouring property have a low front
boundary retaining wall topped by a picket fence. The lane still retains a rural character, adjacent to this property
there is a small field fronted by hedging. There are a mixture of properties in
the immediate locality. To the south
are far reaching views to the sea.
RELEVANT
HISTORY
None
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
This
application has been generated as a result of investigations by the Enforcement
Section. Consent is sought for the
demolition of a workshop and it’s replacement with a new workshop. The new
workshop is completed and is believed to be in the same position as the old
workshop, although no details have been submitted as to the size of the
original workshop. The workshop has
been constructed of red brick with a slate roof, which is in keeping with the
main dwelling and has a width 4.5 metres and depth of 4.740 with a maximum
ridge height of 4 metres.
Consent
is also sought for the retention of the newly formed vehicular hard standing
and retaining wall feature. A small vehicular hard standing did exist within
the site and is now to be used as pedestrian access to the property. The new hard standing has resulted in a
substantial amount of excavation work which is considered to constitute an
engineering operation.
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN/POLICY
Site is
located outside of the development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. In addition the site is also within an area coloured brown
(Areas likely to be subject to significant constraints on development) on the
maps which form part of the Niton Geotechnic Extension Study. Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies
are as follows:
S6 – All development will be
expected to be of a high standard of design
S10 –If it will conserve or enhance
the features of special character of these areas
D1 – Standards of Design
D4 – External Building Works
C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty
G4 - General Locational Criteria for
Development
G7 – Development on Unstable Land
H7 - Extensions and Alterations of
Existing Properties
TR7 – Highway Considerations for New
Development
CONSULTEE
RESPONSES
AONB Officer
is concerned that work has already been carried out resulting in a detrimental
impact on the AONB.
In
their opinion the loss of the native species along the unmade road and the
replacement with the new red brick retaining wall to form an off-road parking
area is detrimental to the rustic character of the lane. They therefore object to the proposal, and
would prefer to see the works removed and hedge reinstated. They also question whether this proposal
requires a change of use, as more land has been taken into domestic curtilage
as a result of these works. However if
we are minded to approve this application then they strongly request that the
impact on the AONB is reduced by placing conditions on the approval requesting
details of landscaping and details of the hard surface treatment in order to
ensure a more rustic and softened appearance.
Highway
Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.
PARISH
/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Niton
and Whitwell Parish Council have recommended approval of the application but
have expressed concern regarding retrospective applications particularly in
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
THIRD
PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
The
application has attracted three letters of objection. The points raised are summarised as follows:
CRIME
AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
No crime
and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
Determining
factors are policy considerations, highway safety and how the development will
impact on the character and appearance of the area which is a nationally
protected landscape.
The
property is not within but is adjacent a SSSI and there are no implications for
the designated area as a result of this application.
Property
is an unusual red brick property, highly visible from the lane and in a
slightly elevated position due to the ground rising from the lane.
Workshop
has been positioned at the side of the property but set back considerably from
the lane frontage, minimising the impact. The workshop is also partially ‘dug’
into the rising ground level on one side and screened by a tree at the
rear. The workshop is considered to be
of an appropriate size and design to the original dwelling and is finished in
materials to match the dwelling.
Concern relating to it’s size have been considered but do not outweigh
policy considerations.
The car
hard standing and retaining wall is partially completed, the applicant having
been advised to cease work pending the outcome of any application. At present the retaining wall is constructed
of blockwork which looks very stark against the rural backdrop. It is proposed that this element of the
scheme will be the subject of a condition, should Members be reminded to
approve the application, requiring the applicant to submit samples of the brick
to be used in the facing of the wall, prior to work continuing, to ensure that
the proposed brick is of a suitable colour and texture to the rural landscape.
In addition submission of a suitable landscaping scheme and details of the
proposed hard surface treatment will also be required, all of which will serve
to soften the impact and retain a more rural character to the scheme.
Given
that the hedge has already been removed and it is not unreasonable to have
parking within the site, the proposed conditions will minimise the impact of
the proposal on the AONB. In the past
due to the absence of adequate parking areas, cars have been forced to park on
the grass verge at the side of the lane which in itself has an adverse impact
on the area.
The
Council’s Consulting Geotechnical Engineer has visited the site and has no
concerns in respect of the excavation work that has taken place on the
stability of the land itself and has confirmed that no other land will or has
been disturbed either by the land being excavated or the construction of the
retaining wall. In view of the fact
that land stability is not being compromised by the application and any issues
relating to the construction of the retaining wall would be the responsibility
of the applicant, I do not consider there would be justification to withhold
consent on the basis of ground stability.
With
regards to the change of use of the land, a small section of the adjoining
agricultural field was purchased by the previous occupants in August 1987 and
used as garden area, this is verified by the natural hedging that runs along
the boundary of the site and has clearly been in place for some time. Although an application for the change of
use of the land should have been made at the time, in view of the time that has
lapsed the land in question has now lawfully become part of the curtilage to
the dwelling. Concerns regarding the
details submitted are noted but application has been considered taking on board
all relevant matters.
HUMAN
RIGHTS
In
coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has
been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy and Article 1
of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other
properties in the area and other third parties have been carefully
considered. Whilst there may be some
interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the
rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights
and freedom of the applicant. It is
also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the
Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION
FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having
given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred
to in this report, I am satisfied that the retention of the workshop along with
the retention and completion of the hard surface and associated retaining wall
subject to conditions represents an acceptable form of development. Although
the loss of hedge has altered the visual character of the immediate locality
this will have minimal impact on the wider landscape character of the area and
does not present a detrimental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1. |
Within
twenty eight days of the date of this decision, samples of the brick to be
used in the facing of the retaining wall hereby permitted shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the
interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2. |
Within
twenty eight days of the date of this decision, details of the surface finish
of parking area hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. Reason: In
the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies D1
(Standards of Design) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3. |
Within
twenty eight days of the date of this decision notice, details of a
landscaping scheme to provide planting behind the retaining wall hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such a scheme shall specify the position, species, sizes and
timing of planting to be provided and shall include provision for maintenance
during the first 5 years from the date of planting. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of
the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4. |
The landscaping
scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
timescale agreed under condition 3 above. Reason: In
the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policy D1
(Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5. |
The
first two metres nearest to the carriageway of the retaining wall on the
southern side of the new hardstanding shall be a maximum of 1 metre high
(above carriageway level), as shaded on the attached plan. Reason:
In the interests of highway
safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6. |
The
workshop hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment
of the dwelling house as such and shall not be used for any business,
commercial or industrial purposes whatsoever. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
OTHER MATTERS NOT
RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS
(a) TCP/21195/E Refusal of Planning Permission: Retention of
Satellite Dish, Stratford House, St Thomas Street, Ryde.
Officer: Mr L Harper Tel:
01983 823569
Summary
To consider
whether the circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice
requiring the removal of the satellite dish.
Background
Planning
permission was refused on 13 August 2004 for the retention of a satellite dish
on the roof of Stratford House, St Thomas Street, Ryde. The reasons for refusal
where:
(1). The retention of the
satellite dish is deemed to be an incongruous feature and is within a
designated Conservation Area failing to enhance or preserve the current amenity
value and accordingly it is contrary to S10 (such facilities only allowed If It
Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of The Area) and
Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan, and,
(2). The application was
accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate whether there is any
practical alternative location for the installation and the Local Planning
Authority is not satisfied that the site chosen and design of the installation
are visually and technically the least harmful that can be achieved and, in
consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policy U17 (Telecommunications
Facilities) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
The Owner was
advised on 17 August 2004 by the Enforcement Section that the continued
retention of the satellite dish was a breach of planning control and could be
the subject of enforcement action to remedy the breach. The owner was further
advised that the possibility of enforcement action could be avoided by the
removal the satellite dish. In response the Owner informed the Local Planning
Authority of the intent to lodge an appeal against the refusal of planning
permission.
The following
Unitary Development Plan Policies apply
Strategic Policies
S10 - In areas of
designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological,
historical landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will
conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.
Detailed Policies
B6 (Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas)
U17
(Telecommunications Facilities)
Financial
Implications
None
Options
Time
for compliance – one month
Conclusion
Planning
permission has been refused for the retention of the satellite dish on the roof
of Stratford House which is in a prominent location within the Ryde
Conservation Area. Notwithstanding the intent of the owner to lodge an appeal
it is my opinion that there are no planning conditions that could overcome or
remedy the harmful impact to the amenity of the conservation area. To await the
determination of an appeal against the refusal of planning permission would
only create the possibility of delaying a resolution through a second appeal
against a subsequent Enforcement Notice.
Accordingly I do not think that we should hold back from service of a
notice at this time.
Human
Rights
In coming to this recommendation,
consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to
Privacy) and Article 1 of the first Protocol (Rights to Peaceful Enjoyment of
Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact of the
continued unauthorised use within the immediate locality has been carefully
considered. The action recommended is proportionate to the legitimate aims of
the Council to remedy the breach of planning control and is made in the public
interest.
Recommendation
To serve an
Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised satellite dish.
Time for
compliance – one month
Head of
Planning Services