|
1. |
NEW APPEALS LODGED |
|
|
|
TCP/26527 |
Brighstone Landscaping Ltd. against refusal of outline for siting of mobile home for security purposes, land at Clamerkin Business Park, Newtown. |
|
|
TCP/17628/D |
Mr C Reynolds against refusal of outline for a dwelling, land adjacent and rear of 146 Gunville Road, Newport. |
|
|
TCP/25191/F |
Mrs S Hicky against refusal for the erection of a multi-purpose agricultural building at Durrant Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield. |
|
|
TCP/19749/B |
Mr Newnham against refusal for two ground floor extensions and single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at 2 Bettesworth Road, Ryde. |
|
|
TCP/23550/B |
Mr and Mrs Spencer against refusal for chalet bungalow with parking area and alterations to vehicular access, land adjacent 106 Pallance Road, Cowes. |
|
|
TCP/223/A |
Mr R Cooper against refusal for demolition of greenhouse and outline for a dwelling on land adjacent 3 Oakfield Road, East Cowes. |
|
|
TCP/13102/S |
Mr N Drysdale against refusal for bungalow, land adjacent 47 Melville Street, Ryde. |
|
|
TCP/11503/F |
Mr J Smith against refusal for vehicular access and hardstanding at 17 Star Street, Ryde. |
|
|
E/10471/F |
Mrs Hall against Enforcement Notice relating to the erection of wind break netting, wires and supporting posts at Timber, Undercliffe Drive, St. Lawrence, Ventnor. |
|
|
TCP/12116/E |
Mr and Mrs Woodford against refusal for single storey rear extension to form additional living accommodation at Little Kitbridge Farm, Forest Road, Newport. |
|
|
TCP/26039/B |
Mr M Cave against refusal for a pair of semi-detached houses with access and lay-by parking, land rear of 91 and 93 Elm Grove, Newport. |
|
|
TCP/13041/A |
Miss P A Stewart against refusal for retention of boundary fence at 11 Castle Court, Ventnor. |
|
2. |
HEARING/INQUIRY DATES |
|
|
|
|
No new dates to report. |
|
3. |
REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS |
||
|
|
NOTE: The Planning
Inspectorate is introducing a new format to its appeal decision letters and
is dispensing with the separate section listing the main issues of the case.
Some of the following appeal decisions are in the new format. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(a) |
TCP/10249/D |
Mr T Blackman against refusal for detached house (revised scheme) on land adjacent Bridge Mead, New Road, Wootton Bridge. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 14 June 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision |
Dismissed 9 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Main Issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector: · Whether the proposed development would provide reasonable living conditions for occupiers and neighbours particularly in relation to privacy, outlook, daylight, sunlight and outdoor amenity space. · The impact of the proposed development on the street scene. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The proposed house would be unduly dominant and overbearing and reduce the daylight available to neighbouring occupiers. · The small rear garden would be overlooked and overlooking from the new dwelling of neighbouring properties would occur. · The proposed dwelling whilst not out of keeping with its neighbours in terms of design would appear cramped. · The development would be harmful to the street scene. · The development would be contrary to policies D1 and H5. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(b) |
E/2817/S |
Island Securities Ltd. against Enforcement Notice relating to the construction of the building at 37 Pyle Street, Newport not in accordance with the approved plans. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Enforcement action to introduce rendered finish and removal of low brick wall. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Enforcement action 25 November 2003. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 15 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Main issue of the case as
identified by the Inspector: ·
Whether there is a breach of planning control. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · There is no evidence to contradict the Councils evidence that the plans showing the change in detail have never been approved either for Planning or Building Regulation purposes. · As a matter of fact and degree, at the time that the Notice was issued, the building did not accord with the original plans or any other plans later approved. |
||
|
|
(c) |
TCP/26225 |
Mr E D Prime against refusal for the conversion of room into an integral garage and the construction of a vehicular access at 51 Bernard Road, Cowes. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 30 April 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 20 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the Inspector: · The proposal would involve the creation of an access within a few metres of a mini roundabout junction. · A car would have to reverse in or out of the proposed garage and such a manoeuvre this close to the roundabout would be hazardous. · The development would have an adverse effect on highway safety and be contrary to TR7. · The introduction of a garage projecting forward of the existing front elevation would appear out of keeping with the predominant character of the road. · The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to policies S1, D1 and H7. |
||
|
|
(d) |
TCP/9667/U |
Mr and Mrs L Gustar against refusal for demolition of factory building and outline for residential development at Hosiden Besson, Binstead Road, Ryde. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal 23 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 20 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Main issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector: ·
Whether the proposal would involve the unacceptable
loss of existing employment land. ·
The effect of the proposal on highway safety. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The proposal
involves the relocation of a non conforming use from the site. ·
The site is
now surrounded by residential development. ·
The previous
use of the site has ceased and it could now be used for employment purposes
in ways that would not be harmful to neighbouring residential occupiers. ·
There is no
evidence which is sufficiently conclusive to indicate that no employment use
could viably take place. ·
The proposal
would involve the unacceptable loss of employment land and would be contrary
to policy E3. ·
The required
visibility of 90 metres cannot be achieved in a westerly direction. ·
In the
absence of any conclusive evidence that the proposed traffic generation would
not be materially larger than the previous use, the visibility is considered
to be inadequate. |
||
|
|
(e) |
TCP/4308/C |
Mr and Mrs D Atkinson against refusal of outline for five bungalows and garages and the formation of an access road on land west of Westway, Northwood, Cowes. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 12 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 20 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Main issue of the case as
identified by the Inspector: ·
The effect of the proposal on the character and
appearance of the area. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The appeal site has a different and less developed
character when compared to the remainder of the rear gardens of numbers 31
and 33 Pallance Road to the north. ·
The proposal would appear as an intrusion of built
form into an open area that has the character of countryside and would conflict
with the Unitary Development Plan. ·
The proposed access road would pass underneath the
substantial canopies of the line of mature oaks along the eastern boundary. ·
Two of these oaks would need to be felled and the
access road would risk harming the roots of the remaining trees. ·
The trees contribute significantly to the rural
character of the site and the wider area. ·
The proposal would have an adverse effect on the
character and appearance of the area and be contrary to Unitary Development
Plan policies. |
||
|
|
(f) |
TCP/9272/H |
Mr G Roberts against refusal for the continued siting of a mobile home at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 16 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed 22 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
Measures have been taken to minimise artificially
induced ground water and prevent any addition to ground instability. ·
The proposal does not amount to a one to one
replacement of the existing house. ·
An application for a one to one replacement would be
dealt with on its merits following an assessment of whether the coastal works
have stabilised the site sufficiently to build a new dwelling. ·
The caravan, whilst not a desirable permanent
addition to the area, is located in an unobtrusive position previously
occupied by buildings. ·
Siting has a limited impact on the AONB. ·
Temporary planning permission of three years would
allow the effects of the coastal protection works to be assessed. ·
The caravan and its associated fixtures should be
removed on or before the expiration of that time. |
||
|
|
(g) |
TCP/25862/B |
Mr M Watson against refusal for the retention of a front boundary fence on land at 89 Alvington Manor View, Carisbrooke. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 20 April 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 22 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The site occupies a corner location on an open plan
residential estate. ·
The fence has an alien appearance on this open plan
development and detracts from the open character and appearance of the street
scene. ·
Retention of the fence is contrary to policies G4, D1
and D4. |
||
|
|
(h) |
TCPL/22131/D & LBC/22131/E |
Mr G Collins against refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for a one/two storey extension to form annexed accommodation at 3 John Street, Ryde. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal (both applications). |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) (both applications) 8 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decisions: |
Dismissed (both appeals) 22 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The proposed extension would unbalance the simplicity
of the existing front elevation. ·
The proposal would be detrimental to the character
and appearance of both the listed building and the surrounding conservation
area. ·
The development would be contrary to policies S10,
B1, B6 and D1, |
||
|
|
(i) |
TCP/2697/C |
Mr and Mrs J Garnam against refusal for change of use from retail to additional living accommodation in connection with existing dwelling, at 41 High Street, Bembridge. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Approval. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal 3 August 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed 22 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: · The unit is only a single room within the dwelling. · The floor space is less than 20 m2 and accounts for less than 1.5% of retail floor space in the village centre. · The unit has no separate storage space, toilet or washing facilities and is heated via the dwellings own system. · The provision of services necessary to convert the unit into a self contained shop would take up a significant part of the available floor space and adversely impact on its viability. · The unit is not self contained, was in retail use for less than 4 years and did not provide a vital local function. · Its loss will have an insignificant effect on the vitality and viability of the thriving shopping centre in Bembridge. · The proposal would not conflict with the aims of R2. · The building works required would have little impact on the appearance of the area. · The use should be limited to accommodation ancillary to the dwelling as the relationship of the unit to the rest of the house would not make it suitable for independent residential use. |
||
|
|
(j) |
TCP/9578/A |
Mr P Miskin against refusal for the demolition of an outbuilding and the construction of a single/two storey extension to form annexed accommodation at Ivy Cottage, Station Road, Ningwood. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 30 April 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed 23 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The proposal would almost double the size of existing
cottage. ·
The extension would have the appearance of two small
linked houses. ·
The proposal would change the character of the
existing modest rural cottage into a structure that would appear as a large
urbanised development. ·
The development would not only be detrimental to the
character of the existing cottage but also the wider rural area and be
contrary to D1, G1, G4 and H7. ·
The personal circumstances of the appellant does not
outweigh the more general planning considerations. |
||
|
|
(k) |
TCP/20290/A |
Mr J Tellick against refusal for the demolition of a wooden chalet and outline for a chalet bungalow and alterations to vehicular access on land rear of Homecroft, Cranmore Avenue, Cranmore. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 26 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 23 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The site is in the open countryside where residential
development, other than exceptions set out in H9, is generally resisted. ·
H9a allows replacement dwellings but the timber
chalet is not considered to be a residential property. ·
The proposal does not constitute infilling. ·
The proposal would be an intensification of
development in the open countryside and detrimental to the rural character,
the AONB and contrary to UDP policy objectives. |
||
|
|
(l) |
TCP/3163/E |
Mr J Woolfenden against refusal for the removal of planning condition which prevents sale of take away hot food from 7 Church Street, Ventnor. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 24 May 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 23 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The site is close to a traffic light controlled
junction with double yellow lines on both sides of the road. ·
On street parking is some distance from the premises.
·
Access to private parking to the rear is not readily
apparent. ·
Customers are likely to try to park as close as
possible to the premises. ·
Parking on a classified road close to traffic lights
would be detrimental to highway safety and the freeflow of traffic and
contrary to TR7. |
||
|
|
(m) |
TCP/26115 |
Mr Lloyd against refusal for the demolition of a garage and outline for a dwelling and hardstanding and alterations to vehicular access on land between 12 and 14 Brook Road, Shanklin. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 8 April 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Dismissed 23 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The proposal would have a very cramped appearance
compared to other houses in this part of the road and would have a
detrimental impact on the street scene. ·
Provision of parking spaces to both the existing
property and proposed dwelling would require the new building to be set
behind the general building line or extremely close to one or other of the
flanking properties. ·
Such arrangement would be out of keeping with the
area. ·
The narrowness of the plot would mean any dwelling
would be deep and thin. ·
The proximity of the secondary windows of the
existing dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the outlook and be
unacceptably overbearing. ·
Any house on this site would be contrary to policy H5
that seeks to preserve the amenities of neighbouring properties. |
||
|
|
(n) |
TCP/15752/W |
Island View Holidays against planning conditions imposed on planning permission for two replacement semi-detached holiday bungalows at Island View, Fort Warden Road, Totland. The conditions in dispute are the six week holiday limitation and the retention of the units with the main holiday complex. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Approval with conditions. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Approval with the above conditions 20 April 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Allowed and both conditions deleted 12 January 2005. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
Paragraph 20 of Circular 11/95 indicates that
conditions affecting land ownership would be ultra vires. ·
Removal of the condition retaining the units with the
main complex would have no significant impact on leisure facilities or the
amenities of the area and its imposition is unnecessary and unduly
restrictive. ·
The permission is subject to a condition restricting
the occupancy of the bungalows to holiday use only. ·
This condition would ensure permanent residential use
would not be established. ·
Neither T1 or T3 of the UDP refer to a need to ensure
only short term lets occur. ·
There is no support for a condition restricting
holiday occupation to six weeks in Circular 11/95 or PPG21. ·
The 6 week occupancy condition is unnecessary to
prevent permanent residential occupation. |
||
|
|
(o) |
TCP/14001/P & E/14001/R |
Maritime and Leisure Investments Ltd. against refusal of planning permission for a car park and against Enforcement Notice requiring the use of the land for car parking to cease, the railings removed and the land reinstated to its original condition, at Embankment Road, Bembridge. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal and enforcement action. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal and enforcement action 23 September 2003. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decision: |
Both dismissed 29 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Main issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector: ·
The impact of the development on the character and
appearance of the area. ·
The implications for road safety. ·
Whether the level of parking provision is
appropriate. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The site forms and important gap between Bembridge
and St. Helens. ·
The site is next to a SSSI and other protective
designations and its use for an inappropriate purpose could have damaging
consequences for the character and appearance of the surroundings. ·
It is not unreasonable to expect some level of
associated parking provision for the houseboats and the present informal
arrangements are uncontrolled. |
||
|
|
·
The proposal would consolidate the informal parking
and offers an opportunity for improvement but would increase the number of
spaces which weighs against the scheme. ·
The present informal arrangements at right angles or
parallel to the road are dangerous. ·
Although no detailed plans have been provided,
visibility splays of 90 metres could probably be provided and need to be
examined more thoroughly to find the optimum access point within the site. ·
The scheme offers major advantages over the present
arrangements in road safety terms. ·
The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate the need
for the number of parking spaces in excess of policy TR16. ·
The greatest risk to nearby designated areas is
possible run off and pollution. ·
No overriding objections were received from English
Nature, Environment Agency or RSPB subject to appropriate mitigation measures
being taken. ·
The impact of the scheme would be reduced with a
lesser number of spaces. ·
The development as proposed is in conflict with UDP
policies but to refuse permission is to ignore the reality of the existence
of the houseboats and their highly unsatisfactory parking arrangements. ·
The scheme has significant advantages in principle
but its present extent is excessive and unjustified. ·
There is no reason why the appellants should not put
forward a revised proposal in which all the concerns could be addressed. |
||
|
|
(p) |
TCP/25652/A & E/25652/B |
Mr J D Bradley against refusal of planning permission and Enforcement Notice relating to change of use of land for paintball games and erection of structures on land at Cats Copse, West View Road, Cowes. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Approval. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal and enforcement action to ensure cessation of use 2 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decisions: |
Dismissed (both appeals) 18 January 2005. |
|
|
|
Main issues of the case as
identified by the Inspector: ·
Whether there has been a breach of planning control. ·
If so, the implications for the use for nature
conservation; and ·
The impact on the living conditions of nearby
residents. |
||
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: ·
The appellants assertion of the number of events
having taken place is unsupported by any kind of documentary evidence or records
and is unconvincing even on a balance of probabilities. ·
The two base camps appeared to have been assembled on
site and are attached to the ground and the degree of affixation and
permanence takes them outside the description of moveable. · Even if the games took place on no more than 28 days, operational development has been carried out and as a question of fact and degree, a material change of use has taken place. · With a potentially large increase in the number of games, the damage at ground level would be likely to be more widespread and more permanent than at present. · Even with a zoned no go or sanctuary area, wildlife in this small relatively isolated wood would be particularly susceptible to disturbance. · The wood is too small to support the paintball games without material damage to wildlife. · In a largely quiet, rural but partly residential area such as this, noise from the games could well become intrusive. |
||
|
|
(q) |
TCP/10522/D |
Trustees of Blackgang Mission against refusal for demolition of former mission hall and the construction of a detached dwelling and garage at former Blackgang Mission Hall, Blythe Shute, Chale. |
|
|
Officer Recommendation: |
Refusal. |
|
|
|
Committee Decision: |
Refusal (Part 1) 17 March 2004. |
|
|
|
Appeal Decisions: |
Dismissed 20 December 2004. |
|
|
|
Conclusions of the
Inspector: · Whilst a building exists on this site, it is not a dwelling. · The site is not in a sustainable location for new residential development. · The existing building, located close to the road, acts as a transition between the built form of Chale and the open countryside beyond. · The proposal would extend the residential development towards the open countryside. · The replacement of the mission hall with a dwelling would harm the contribution the site currently makes to the rural landscape within the AONB and the Heritage Coast. |
||
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services