PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 15 MARCH 2005

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.

2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. (In some circumstances, consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).

3. THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE 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.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning application or other item of business.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.

Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the 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 –

15 MARCH 2005

TCP/00634/F P/02379/04

Outline for a dwelling; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme)

Land adjacent Pearl Cottage, Ferniclose Road, Seaview

Seaview

Conditional Approval

TCP/00969/D P/01540/04

Demolition of 2 dwellings; outline for 1 chalet bungalow, 2 bungalows & a terrace of 3 houses with parking; formation of access drive & alterations to vehicular access (revised plans) (readvertised application)

10 and 12, Wyatts Lane, Cowes

Northwood

Conditional Approval

TCP/01612/G P/01662/04

Demolition of workshop; construction of 1 dwelling (revised plans)

Island Joinery Ltd, St. Johns Road,

Wroxall, Ventnor

Wroxall

Conditional Approval

TCP/01680/K P/02422/04

Replacement windows to 1st floor flat

1 Wheatsheaf Lane, Yarmouth

Yarmouth

Refusal

TCP/06502/D P/02195/04

Demolition of bungalow; outline for residential development with parking & access off Windmill Close (revised scheme)

238 Upton Road, Ryde

Ryde

Conditional Approval

TCP/14203/D P/00255/03

Change of use of agricultural land to form a golf course; outline for clubhouse, shop, staff accommodation, maintenance facilities, car park and access road

Land off, Chawton Lane, Cowes

Northwood

Refusal

TCP/14661/D P/01832/04

Erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses & a terrace of three houses with parking and access off Bannock Road

Land adjoining and rear of Whinscott, Bannock Road, Whitwell, Ventnor

Niton

Conditional Approval

TCP/15752/X P/01077/04

48 holiday chalets; building to provide reception/office facilities with wardens flat over; outdoor swimming pool & tennis courts

Island View Chalets, Fort Warden Road, Totland Bay

Totland

Conditional Approval

TCP/16761/C P/02170/04

Conversion of redundant barn to unit of holiday accommodation with decked raised terrace and balustrading on south west elevation; alterations to vehicular access

Gladices Barn, Gladices Lane, Chale Green, Ventnor

Chale

Conditional Approval

10.

TCP/17752/E P/00844/04

Demolition of former rectory; construction of 3 storey block with third floor circular tower feature providing total of 10 flats; parking/2 integral garages & vehicular access off Cambridge Road, (revised scheme), (revised design), (readvertised application)

St. Mildreds Rectory, 73 Cambridge Road, East Cowes

East Cowes

11.

TCPL/23329/H P/01917/04

Construction of yacht haven & town pier

Section of foreshore between The Royal Yacht Squadron and opposite the bandstand, The Parade, Cowes

Cowes

Conditional Approval

12.

LBC/23329/J P/01921/04

Section of foreshore between The Royal Yacht Squadron and opposite the bandstand, The Parade, Cowes

Cowes

Conditional Approval

13.

TCP/25011/A P/00019/05

Retention of dwelling as constructed

Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth

Yarmouth

Refusal

14.

TCP/25830/A P/01992/04

New entrance porch with canopy; change of use of conference room to office accommodation; alterations to upgrade and refurbish facilities; additional car parking area

Westridge Centre, Brading Road, Ryde

Seaview

Conditional Approval

15.

TCP/26549/B P/02513/04

Retention of storage building linked to 'Junior Driver' attraction

Needles Pleasure Park, Alum Bay, Totland Bay

Totland

Conditional Approval

16.

TCP/26556/A P/02688/04

Demolition of garage; construction of end of terrace house; formation of vehicular access

Land adjacent 1, Gordon Close, Ryde

Ryde

Conditional Approval

TCP/00634/F P/02379/04 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 12/11/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr & Mrs I Hodder

Outline for a dwelling; formation of vehicular access (revised scheme)

land adjacent Pearl Cottage, Ferniclose Road, Seaview, PO34

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member Councillor Barry has requested this application is reported to Committee owing to the nature of the application and public concern.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken 17 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period owing to work load of Development Control Officers.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to amenity space to Pearl Cottage which itself is end of terrace unit situated on western side of Ferniclose Road which leads off Gulley Road

Triangular-shaped site is currently grassed with stone wall to road frontage and hedging to rear.

Land has pronounced slope falling to north with site itself at higher level than host property.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline planning consent for dwelling on this site was refused in March 2004 under delegated procedures. Reasons for refusal involved development out of character and harmony with surrounding pattern of development and resultant unsatisfactory relationship between dwellings leading to loss of amenity through overlooking and over dominance.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This revised application again seeks outline consent with means of access to be considered at this stage for single dwelling unit.

Illustrative plans indicate three bedroomed unit centrally located within site with formation of vehicular access onto Ferniclose Road.

Plans indicate upside down accommodation layout with kitchen/dining room and lounge at first floor level.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development envelope boundary as defined on Unitary Development Plan. Following Policies are considered relevant in this instance:

S1 - New Development will be Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas

S2 - Development will be Encouraged on Land which has been Previously Developed (Brownfield Sites)

G1 - Development Envelope

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within Site

H5 - Infill Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer confirms pre-application discussions and as with previous submission recommends the imposition of standard conditions should consent be granted.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council have concern at what may be overdevelopment of site and they also question whether infrastructure is in place for additional buildings in area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Ten letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Increased density of development.

Proposal out of keeping with character and design of buildings in locality.

Implications for road safety and potential conflict with users of highway system particularly those using coastal bridle way routes along Ferniclose Road which has no pavement or footpath.

Potentially adverse ground conditions and slope stability issues.

Impact on existing oak trees which bound site

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Given sites location was in development envelope there is no objection in principle to development of this site determining matters relating to detail which in this instance are principally implications of developing plot and its impact on the street scene in general and amenities of surrounding residential occupiers in particular and implications of highway safety. Other considerations relate to potential loss of trees and ground conditions.

Whilst appreciating recent refusal of outline consent on this site members should appreciate that application before them again seeks outline consent with only means of access to be considered at this stage.

Whilst there is a variety of styles, design and sizes of dwelling in locality this in itself is not a reason to resist development on a plot if suitable in all other respects.

In terms of plot size it is considered that it is of sufficient size to accommodate single dwelling unit which could sit comfortably within boundaries of land available. Additionally relationship and distances to adjoining properties is considered to be sufficient to allow development of this plot without adversely impacting on amenities of those surrounding occupiers. Plans submitted are for illustrative purposes only and do not in my opinion present compatible development or meet requirement to minimize impact on surrounding residents. However if members are satisfied with the potential development of this plot then outline consent should be granted with more detailed matters relating to siting, size and to be considered at detailed stage.

With regards access, new vehicle access would be located on outside of bend onto Ferniclose Road which whilst having no footpath is of limited width which does help reduce traffic speeds in locality. Furthermore road does not carry significant traffic movements. It is not considered that the addition of additional dwelling unit in this area could be reasonably resisted on increased traffic hazard, a view that is supported by Highway Engineer.

Trees referred to by third parties lie outside application site and with careful siting of proposal would not be adversely impacted upon.

Finally, whilst site has pronounced fall across it and is coastal in its location in dealing with other developments in locality Building Control Inspector has confirmed that providing appropriate site investigations are carried out and foundation details designed accordingly there is no objection in principle to development in this locality. Other failures of buildings in locality referred to by third parties are likely to be a result of inadequate foundations rather than ground movement.

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 contained in this report I consider that in principle site is suitable for development with single dwelling and provided care is taken when detailed matters are considered can accommodate dwelling which would not adversely impact on either street scene or amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. Accordingly proposal accords with relevant Unitary Development Policies and general guidance continued within PPG3 'Housing' which seeks to encourage efficient sustainable use of urban land.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development Within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

4	Turning Space - (not listed under system headings)

6	Vehicular access - J30

TCP/00969/D P/01540/04 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 19/07/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Sutton & Mr & Mrs G Warren

10 and 12, Wyatts Lane, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member, Cllr Mazillius, has submitted written objections to the proposal and, therefore, is not in a position to deal with the application under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to negotiations with the applicant’s architect with regard to various aspects of the scheme, the need to publicise the revised scheme and case officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to irregular shaped site located on western side of Wyatts Lane, approximately 180 metres south of its junction with Pallance Road. Site has a depth of some109 metres and a frontage to the road of approximately 15 metres. The site has a width of between 13 and 15 metres over a distance of 54 metres, measured from the roadside boundary, with a width of between 23.5 and 25 metres over the remainder. The site has a gentle fall away from the road.

The site is presently occupied and forms gardens to two dwellings, 10 and 12 Wyatts Lane. Number 10 sits close to the road and follows the general building line in the area whilst number 12 sits well back from the road accessed over a narrow driveway off Wyatts Lane, which runs between the frontage of development. A similar arrangement also exists on site immediately to the north. The area is characterised by a mix of dwelling types, styles and ages of property.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/00969/C – P/00757/04 – A planning application was submitted April 2004 seeking consent to demolish two dwellings (10 and 12 Wyatts Lane) and outline consent for 10 houses with parking and access road off Wyatts Lane. Although seeking outline consent only, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval with the exception of access, the submission was accompanied by quite detailed plans showing 10 dwellings, arranged as a terrace of 4 dwellings and two terraces of 3 dwellings, at the western end of the site with access off Wyatts Lane.

A number of concerns were raised by the case officer in respect of the proposal, with particular regard to the layout and number of units proposed as a result of which, the application was withdrawn by the applicant’s agent in order to review the situation, with the intention of submitting a further application a later date.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The current proposal follows the withdrawal of the previous application and represents a revised scheme for development of the site. The original submission sought consent for the demolition of the two dwellings which presently occupy the site and outline planning permission for 6 detached bungalows with garaging/parking; formation of access drive and alterations to vehicular access. Again, although the application seeks outline consent with only access to be considered at this stage, the submission was accompanied by quite detailed plans showing the layout of the development and elevational details of the bungalows. The layout of the properties was considered to be rather regimented and cramped with some of the dwellings having limited private amenity space.

Following negotiations with the applicant’s agent, the scheme was revised further and the application amended to include consideration of the siting of the dwellings. The revised plans show a layout for six dwellings comprising one chalet bungalow, two bungalows, a terrace of 3 houses with access road and parking spaces for 8 vehicles. The layout of the development now creates more space around the dwellings, which have clearly defined curtilages. In addition, the revised layout safeguards the potential to continue the access road to facilitate limited further development on land adjoining the application site, which presently forms part of substantial gardens to properties fronting Wyatts Lane.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site as detailed on the revised plans is within the development envelope for Cowes and Northwood, as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of 8,000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 – Infill Development

C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineer initially recommended refusal on grounds that the access was unsatisfactory to serve the development by reason of unacceptable visibility. However, following discussions between the applicant’s architect and the Highway Engineer, I understand that these inadequacies could be overcome by the implementation of a traffic management scheme in the location of the application site and that this could be linked to that already approved in Wyatts Lane, enabling the highway authority to complete a comprehensive scheme. This would require a contribution from the developer in the region of £20,000.

Council's Ecology Officer notes that objectors have expressed concern regarding impact of development on wildlife, particularly wildlife using important meadow land in the vicinity. However, this meadow land lies outwith the development site and should not be affected. He advises that the row of trees at the western boundary of the site is an important feature and is likely to form part of a corridor for red squirrels to move through and should therefore be protected.

The Ecology Officer acknowledges that the site is principally well managed gardens with some ornamental shrubs and trees which is unlikely to provide important refuges for species referred to by the objectors. However, he notes that bats are referred to as using the area and that the application involves the demolition of two bungalows. He advises that many bat species will roost in building and pipistrelle bats, the most frequent species in built up areas, will roost in bungalows. Consequently, either of the properties could provide roosting sites for bats, all of which are protected under UK and European legislation and the presence or otherwise of bats in a building proposed for demolition cannot be ruled out. Ideally, both properties should be checked for the presence of a bat roost prior to demolition. Alternatively, he would advise that consent is subject to a condition requiring a bat survey to be carried out by an experienced licenced consultant prior to demolition. In the event that a bat roost is found, it would be necessary to obtain a licence from DEFRA. This may limit the time of year during which demolition can take place and a requirement for mitigation.

Following consultations with Southern Water, it is understood that their records show some flooding incidents in the area, although most of these are associated with blockages. They advise that a sewer capacity check was undertaken for development on a site to the east of the current application site which indicated that there was insufficient capacity in the immediate area but a connection to the sewer further to the south in Wyatts Lane, near number 36, would be acceptable for the foul flow. However, they would not want any surface water connected to the sewer and advise that if the surface water from the existing is directed elsewhere, there may be sufficient spare capacity to serve the new development.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The original submission attracted 27 letters from local residents, several households submitting two letters, and letters from the Northwood Community Partnership and Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) expressing concern and objecting to the application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Part of site is outside the development envelope.

Adverse impact on amenities/privacy of neighbouring properties.

Inadequate amenity/gardens for children to play – applicant should make contribution to the upkeep of nearby play equipment.

Increased pressure on local schools.

Properties in area have suffered subsidence – concern expressed that development will impact on ground stability in area.

Overdevelopment - density proposed is out of keeping with character of rural village.

Concern expressed regarding the management of surface water run-off from site.

Concern expressed that proposal will create potential for development of adjacent land.

Combined sewers do not have capacity to accommodate additional flows from this development.

Development may impact on wildlife habitat in area, including squirrels and bats etc.

Concerns regarding safety of access onto Wyatts Lane.

If proposal is allowed, contribution should be made for the provision of a footway in Wyatts Lane in the interest of safety for pedestrians.

Safe access could only be achieved by removal of hedge to roadside boundary of adjacent property – having number of adverse effects on area and the property.

Traffic generation – adverse impact on highway safety, particularly pedestrians on thoroughfare to local primary school.

Inadequate parking provision.

Major development in Northwood has provided more than sufficient new homes in the area.

Cumulative effect of development in area is resulting in the overdevelopment of Northwood.

Proposal does not comply with SPG on infill development – each dwelling should have separate access.

Loss of two perfectly good dwellings.

Following receipt of the revised plans, the application was subject to further publicity, including written notification to those who had previously submitted comments on the application. As a result, a further 17 letters were received from local residents, some households again submitting two letters, and comments from the Northwood Community Partnership. The correspondence raised no new issues to those detailed above.

The Local Member, Cllr Mazillius, has also submitted objections to the proposal, the grounds for which are included in the summary of objections detailed above. However, he comments that if planning permission is granted, it is important that consent is conditional on substantial road safety works funded by the applicant.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The determining factors in considering the application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether the development of the site with 6 dwellings as proposed would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring properties and the environment in general. In addition, it is necessary to have regard for the adequacy or otherwise of the access to the site.

The site is located within the development envelope and, by virtue of the fact that it is presently occupied by two dwellings, is considered to be a brownfield site, i.e. previously developed. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle.

The site has an area of approximately 0.2 hectares. Therefore, development of the site with six dwellings as proposed would give rise to a density of development of approximately thirty dwellings to the hectare. This sits at the lower end of the minimum density of thirty to fifty dwellings per hectare advocated by Planning Policy Guidance note 3 (PPG3), which seeks to encourage most efficient use of land. Whilst the longer established development in the vicinity of the application site, generally comprising detached and semi-detached properties in large plots, equates to a lower density, there are examples of higher density development in the area, including that within Harry Cheek Gardens/Chessell Close, to the south of the application site, and more recent approvals, which involve development of a style not dissimilar to the current proposal. Given the relatively low density involved in the current proposal, and the mix of development in the area in general, I do not consider that proposal represents overdevelopment of the site or that refusal on such grounds would be justified.

The proposal involves the provision of a mix of dwelling types, including a chalet bungalow to the forward most part of the site and a terrace of houses to the rear of the site with two bungalows in the intervening area. Whilst the dwellings at the rear of the site would provide two storey accommodation, with possibility of additional rooms within the roof space, I consider that there would be sufficient distance between them and the properties fronting Wyatts Lane that an unacceptable level of overlooking would not occur. Furthermore, these dwellings would occupy the lowest part of the site, some 4 metres below the level of Wyatts Lane. Should members be minded to approve the current application, it will of course be necessary to give further consideration to the matter of overlooking at the time of dealing with a subsequent application for approval of reserved matters or full planning permission, with particular attention to the design of the dwellings and the positioning of windows therein.

Objectors have referred to part of the site being outside of the development envelope. However, revised plans have been submitted excluding the area outside the development boundary as defined on the UDP, from the application site. I do not consider this compromises the proposal in any way and that adequate amenity space is retained for each of the proposed dwellings. Concern has also been expressed that the proposal would result in a loss of habitat for wildlife. Following consultations with the Council's Ecology Officer, I am satisfied that proposal would not result in loss or adversely impact on any important wildlife habitats. Whilst there is a possibility that squirrels pass through the site along a corridor of trees or bats may roost in the dwellings to be demolished, this would not necessarily preclude development taking place, although it would be necessary for the applicant to obtain appropriate licences and implement necessary mitigations measures.

Whilst it has been suggested that properties in the area have suffered subsidence, consultations with the area Building Control Surveyor indicate that there have been no applications under the Building Regulations for underpinning. Furthermore, the site is not considered to be within an area of known or potential ground stability problems. Subsidence to a property is not necessarily an indication of ground stability problems and can be caused for a number of other reasons. In this instance, it is not considered that the proposed development could cause or contribute to ground stability or subsidence problems in this area. The Building Control Surveyor has also confirmed that ground conditions comprise gravel which would be suitable for the provision of soakaways to which surface water from the development could be discharged.

The comments from Southern Water indicate that any potential problems regarding the adequacy of drainage in this area are not insurmountable. The exclusion of any surface water from the combined drains in the area would alleviate pressure on the system and connections for the disposal of foul water could be made at points on the system where adequate capacity exists. I am satisfied that this issue could be adequately addressed by condition of any planning permission for development of the site, should Members be minded to approve this application.

The Senior Education Officer has confirmed that there is a short fall in school provision for Primary, Middle and High schools in the Cowes and Northwood area. The requirement for a developer to make a contribution for education provision would normally only apply to developments of ten dwellings or more. However, whilst the current proposal only involves six dwellings, negotiations have taken place with the applicant's agent in respect of the layout of the dwellings in order to safeguard future potential for development on adjoining land. I consider that development of the adjoining land at a similar density to the current proposal would result in development of the site and adjoining land exceeding the required threshold of ten dwellings for education contribution. Therefore, in the event that planning permission was granted for the development of this site as proposed, a contribution equating to £2,145 per unit would be payable, giving a total contribution of £12,800.70.

Following further discussions with the Highways Engineer, he has confirmed that adequate visibility would be achieved at the junction of the access road with Wyatts Lane, subject to a scheme for traffic calming being implemented. However, this would necessitate removal or a reduction in height of boundary treatment to the roadside of the adjacent properties. I am satisfied that this matter can be addressed by a condition of planning permission, should Members be minded to approve the application. Ultimately, it will be necessary for the applicant to carry out negotiations with the owners of these properties to achieve the required visibility splays.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that the site can accommodate six dwellings in the layout detailed on the submitted plans without detracting from the character of the area, amenities of the neighbouring properties or the environment in general. Furthermore, I consider that the implementation of a comprehensive traffic management scheme in this area should ensure that the additional traffic flow are accommodated on the highway without causing undue hazard to other road users and particularly pedestrians.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01

2	Time limit - reserved - A02

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

No work in respect of the demolition of the existing dwellings within the site shall commence until such time as a survey has been carried out by a competent licenced consultant to ascertain whether bats are present within the building. Thereafter, a report on the results of the survey, together with any necessary mitigations measures, shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of Nature Conservation and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) (a) - (d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said planning obligation will provide for:

a) a sum of £20,00 to be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution towards comprehensive traffic calming in Wyatts Lane.

b) A sum of £12,870 (6 x £2,145) to be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution to education facilities.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that adequate provision for education facilities and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and U2 (Ensuring Adequate Educational, Social and Community Facilities for the future population) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The trees along the western boundary of the site shall be retained and shall not be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. No development including site clearance shall commence on site until the trees along the western boundary have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification:

1.2 metre minimum height chestnut palling to BS1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2 metre minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground or such other method of agreed protection which forms and effective barrier to disturbance to the trees.

Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of works on the site and no building materials, excavated material, plant or machinery shall be stored or no digging of trenches or other excavations or changes in ground level shall take place within the cordoned off area.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and Nature Conservation and to comply with Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

7	Visibility and sight lines - J20

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme, including calculations and capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exists, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such systems have been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2 - That a letter is sent to the applicant drawing attention to the requirements of Condition 4 and advising that, in the event of bats being present within the building, it will be necessary to obtain a licence from DEFRA prior to demolition of the building.

TCP/01612/G P/01662/04 Parish/Name: Wroxall Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 04/08/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854

Applicant: Island Joinery

Demolition of workshop; construction of 1 dwelling (revised plans)

Island Joinery Ltd, St. Johns Road, Wroxall, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383EE

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Councillor Yates the Local Member has requested that this application go before the Development Control Committee in order that Members may consider issues relating to loss of employment within the rural economy, access, and the need for further evaluation of third party and consultee responses.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken thirty two weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to officer workload, negotiations and consultations with third parties.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a back land commercial site located to land at the rear of the Old Chapel, St Johns Road, Wroxall.

The site is currently used by joinery business. The industrial unit's built form uses the whole of the site, having a 1 metre buffer strip between the elevations of the building and the boundary belonging to neighbouring properties. The single storey pitched roof building is constructed of corrugated sheeting and is approximately 2.2 metres higher than that of residential dwellings located along St. Johns Road, Wroxall. The rear gardens of these properties slope up in an easterly direction to the rear of the site but are not as elevated as this industrial unit.

The north elevation of the building has two windows of a clear finish which face into the rear curtilage of the neighbouring property while the south elevation has three windows of the same finish which face onto a 1.8 metre fence being subdivided by the pedestrian access to the workshop.

The west elevation is blank in form and faces a converted chapel, which is now a residential dwelling, and has four windows facing the industrial unit. There is a 2.2 metre gap between these elevations. The ground floor windows directly face onto a block work wall, as this forms part of the raised plinth in which the industrial unit sits. The first floor windows of the converted chapel look directly onto the corrugated sheeting and is in line with windows at the same level and height of those belonging to Island Joinery at ground floor level on the southern elevation.

Numerous industrial units are located to the rear of the site accessed from Castle Road, but these units are divided by a public footpath and access for these units.

There is a range of architectural styles, character and appearance to residential dwellings in the area, either being detached or semi detached, ranging from Victorian to modern day properties. This parcel of land is the only one in which the whole curtilage of the site is used by built form having no amenity space whatsoever unlike that of neighbouring properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No relevant history

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the demolition of the workshop and construction of a two storey two bedroom detached dwelling. Initially submitted proposal involved two dwellings on the site in a mews form, covering the whole footprint of the curtilage, representing a similar scale and mass to the building presently on site. A reduction to a single dwelling was negotiated and is now before Members for determination.

The dwelling itself is constructed of reconstituted stone with brick quoins and is positioned to the rear of the site, having the eastern elevation forming part of the rear boundary facing the public footpath. The building is 6.5 metres in height, with the ridge running in a north south direction. A single storey extension protrudes from the west elevation measuring 3.3 metres in length and 3.6 metres in height, with the ridge fitting below the eaves level of the main dwelling. The total footprint of the building measures 55.5 square metres, leaving the remaining 109 square metres as outside amenity space with the creation of a 1.8 metre brick wall surrounding the curtilage of the site, to creating a walled garden.

The eastern elevation has seven windows serving both a kitchen, WC, study, bedroom. All of which face the industrial units mentioned previously. The north elevation is predominantly blank in form but has one small oriel window at first floor level serving a bedroom. This elevation is 1 metre off the boundary, giving a buffer between the building and the rear curtilage of the neighbouring property. The southern gable has no windows within the elevation but has a number of windows serving the single storey extension which is set back 5.3 metres off the neighbouring boundary. The west elevation serves as the main entrance to the property having both the front door and a set of patio doors to the extension. Two velux windows are located within the roof pitch with no other windows at first floor level.

The main access arrangements being pedestrian in nature are as the existing situation. The main access is off St Johns Road running to the side of the converted chapel. There is a rear access off the footpath running between the site and the industrial units. The proposal therefore has no allocated parking provision.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - Development within Existing Urban Centres

S6 - High Standard of Design

S7 - Meeting Housing Stock for Planned Period

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns

G4 - General Locational Criteria

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards of Development Within the Site

H1 - New Development within Main Island Towns

H5 - Infill Development

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health have no adverse comment in respect of this application but do request that a Contaminated Land condition is applied for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites.

Highways recommend refusal due to the insufficient parking provision, being inconsistent with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan).

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wroxall Parish Council recommend that scheme is over development on a limited plot with concern about access and the effect on the local economy due to the loss of the business premises. These comments were made prior to revision reducing the proposal to one dwelling.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted seven letters of objection that can be summarised as follows:

· Overdevelopment of the Site

· Tandem Development which is not encouraged within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan setting a precedent within the area

· Loss of employment decreasing the viability and vitality of Wroxall

· Against Parking Guidelines within the Unitary Development Plan

· Cars will use the public footpath to the rear of the site leading to a danger to pedestrians

· The pedestrian access is not adequate for residential properties

· Site Plan is out of date and insufficient

· Road surface is in a poor state of repair

· Construction Traffic will cause a disamenity to the localised area

Campaign to Protect Rural England refer to backland nature of site and lack of on-site parking and setting of precedent

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

There are no crime and disorder implications anticipated with this application.

EVALUATION

The key issue relating to this application is whether the retention of an industrial unit within this back land location under can be supported by employment policies as opposed to planning gain offered by removal of non-conforming user within residential area.

Members are advised that the current applicant is retiring from his business operations and is either looking to develop the site with this proposal or sell the site to another industrial user. The applicant has used the site for over 40 years and does not appear to have caused any disamenity to neighbouring occupiers. In normal circumstances any new development within this location either being residential or industrial would be unlikely to be supported by the Local Planning Authority due to its position and its relationship to other land uses. Members should appreciate that another industrial user of the site within the same use classes order could potentially create disturbance to the residential amenity. In terms of employment this site generates a low level of employment with the applicant and his son running the operations, and any new occupier could intensify usage.

Initial plans submitted to the Local Planning Authority sought consent for two dwellings on the site covering the whole footprint in a mews style development, giving a similar scale and mass to the current building on site. Scheme was negotiated to a single dwelling, reducing the scale, mass and footprint of the building, giving a better spatial relationship, freeing up outside amenity space, reasonably suiting the prevailing pattern of development but also to reduce the existing mass currently on site.

The building itself sits to the rear of the site leaving a 11.2 metre gap between the elevation of the building and the converted chapel. Members should note that the original building leaves a 2.2 metre gap, therefore this proposal significantly improves the space about and amenities to this property.

The design of the building has placed all principle windows to the front and back therefore leaving the side elevations blank resulting in little overlooking or loss of privacy to the rear curtilages or existing residential properties. The current building has windows on both side elevations looking directly into gardens which does cause an impact and level of overlooking in its current status. All ground floor windows will have protected views to the boundary, being, a 1.8 metre brickwork wall, creating an enclosed space which both protects the amenities of the potential occupier of the site and the existing residential units within the area. Although the house is on a raised plinth there will be no reasonable disamenity in comparison to the existing use and building on site.

The design of the building suits that of the local vernacular, using appropriate materials and architectural styles to suit the prevailing pattern of development, being sympathetic to the general character of the area. The footprint of the building has been dramatically reduced in size in comparison to the existing situation therefore improving the local amenities and spatial characteristics of the area. The proposal is also deemed to improve the land use on site, replacing an industrial unit with potential impacts with a small residential unit with little impact .

With respect to third party representations the Local Planning Authority feel that the negotiated scheme is not overdevelopment of the site, as the proposal provides a small residential unit, and in the current circumstances is deemed to be appropriate for this location. Although this is tandem development it has been indicated that it will set a precedent for the area but members must note that each application is treated on its own merits and back land development is not ideal in such locations, but due to the current land use the impact on the local amenities will be improved by this proposal. Circumstances of this case are somewhat unique given existing premises on site.

Although the dwelling does not provide parking provision there is no available space or access for this. It will be noted that the existing land use does have a level of traffic which uses St Johns Road. Existing workshop attracts commercial traffic on daily basis together with customer and staff vehicles. Proposed two bedroom unit is likely to reduce traffic flow to site. Given existing commercial activity on site and fact that proposal involves brownfield development on a site with very limited access arrangements it is felt on this particular occasion that the lack of off-street parking provision for a less intensive use is not an issue that should outweigh opportunity to remove industrial user from this site. The pedestrian access to the site is as existing, using the corridor between the converted church and so there will be no impact on this property.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the dwelling as indicated on the submitted plans represents an opportunity to develop a small brownfield site, protecting and indeed enhancing the visual amenities and enjoyment to those of nearby residential properties and is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies S1 (Development Within Existing Urban Centres), S6 (High Standards of Design), S7 (Meeting Housing Stock of Planned Period), G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns), G4 (General Locational Criteria), D1 (Standard of Design), D2 (Standard of Development within The Site), H1 (New Development within Main Island Towns), H5 (Infill Development), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

No development shall take place until [samples of materials] to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building hereby permitted (is) 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.

4	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

5	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

6	Withdraw PD rights alts to roofs - R04

No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a) a desk-top study documenting all previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance as set out in Contaminated Land Research Report Nos. 2&3 and BS10175:2001;

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175: 2001 - "Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice",

and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

c) a remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation.

The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator identified in Condition No. 7 has provided a report, which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that where necessary, the land is remediated to an appropriate standard in order to comply with Part llA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

TCP/01680/K P/02422/04 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 19/11/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823856

Applicant: Mrs S Donaldson

Replacement windows to 1st floor flat

1 Wheatsheaf Lane, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410PF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested at time of submission by the local member Councillor Mrs Butchers as issues have been raised regarding replacement of windows within the Conservation Area which she wishes to be discussed by The Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application which will have taken 16 weeks to the date of the Committee. The application has gone beyond the eight week period for determination of planning applications due to negotiation with the applicant’s agent and the need for a Committee decision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a small two storey property situated at the corner of Wheatsheaf Lane and Jireh Place which are narrow lanes in the heart of the old town of Yarmouth.

The area is characterised by a mixture of buildings of traditional design including natural stone and rendered to elevations with buildings varying from two to three storeys in height. Most of the properties have commercial use at ground floor level with storage or residential uses above. The roads are relatively narrow and contained although there are some open spaces and the southern elevation of the property is prominent due to an open area in the street immediately to the south.

The application building is of two storey construction with natural stone walls and brick detailing. The first floor windows have previously been replaced with metal framed casements which are painted white. There are traditional painted timber shop display windows at ground floor level.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1680/J - P/1221/03 Application for continued use of premises as retail unit including section of rear courtyard. Planning Permission granted December 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application is for planning permission for a material alteration to the exterior of this building involving replacement windows at first floor level. The submitted details indicate the removal of the first floor metal framed windows and their replacement with factory made white coated aluminium window frames set within a hardwood sub frame. These windows would be installed within the existing openings and would incorporate glazing bars and small panes.

The application details include information regarding the frame profiles which would appear thicker and more prominent than the thin metal frames of the existing window. In addition, the applicant’s agent has indicated that it would not be possible to provide external glazing bars and these would have to be fitted internally within the double glazed units.

The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the hardwood sub frames could be painted white if required to give a more traditional appearance to the new windows.

The application details also include examples of other properties in the vicinity which have had replacement windows some of which are constructed of UVPC and some also include internal glazing bars similar to those which are now proposed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

This property is situated within the designated conservation area, and although a traditional building of considerable age, is not listed as being of special architectural or historic merit. It is nevertheless in a prominent location and is clearly seen from several vantage points within the designated conservation area.

Unitary Development Plan Policy B6 indicates that planning applications which preserve or enhance the character of conservation areas will be approved. Development involving the removal of buildings, structures, walls, trees and other features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance will not be permitted.

Other relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are detailed below:

S6 - All Development will be expected to be of a High Standard of Design

S10 - Designated and Defined Areas

G4 - General Location Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

Guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 refers to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires local Planning Authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. If any proposed development would conflict with these objectives there will be a strong presumption against the granting of planning permission.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The AONB Officer makes no comment.

TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Yarmouth Town Council raise no objections to the application

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None received

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application relates to an attractive traditional building situated in a prominent location within the designated Conservation Area.

The character and quality of the traditional townscape, is to a large degree dependent on the traditional detailing and use of materials for the buildings and the streetscape. This is particularly noted in the importance of some of the traditional shop fronts and joinery detailing on the older buildings. The gradual loss of such details can significantly erode the special character of an area and individual buildings. It is therefore considered particularly important that any material changes to the traditional buildings are carefully considered.

In this particular case, the first floor windows which are proposed to be changed are not original to the building and although of vertical proportion with relatively thin frames, are not considered to be particularly characteristic of this building or of other traditional buildings in the area. Therefore, I do not consider that the principle of replacing these windows would be unacceptable although it is considered important that any new windows to be installed should be appropriate to the building and the area.

The submitted details show replacement windows with white coated aluminium frames set in a hardwood frame. The combination of the hardwood sub frame and the relatively wide and flat aluminum sections would result in windows having significantly wider visible frames than those which currently exist. The applicant’s agent has indicated that the hardwood sub frames could be painted white which would give a more traditional appearance, although would not reduce the overall size of the framing.

The design of the new fenestration would be traditional in character with the windows subdivided by glazing bars into small panes similar to those which exist on other properties in the area and would probably reflect the original windows on this property. However, detailed negotiations have indicated that it would not be practical to provide external glazing bars to the double glazed units proposed and that these would therefore be located behind the glass giving a modern appearance and spoiling the overall effect of the windows. Members will particularly note that these glazing bars virtually disappear from view when seen obliquely or in reflected light. This is evidenced from photographs of other properties in the area.

The applicant’s agent has submitted a number of photographs showing other traditional buildings in the area which have replacement windows similar to those which are now proposed. Records held by this authority do not reveal any specific approval for these windows which therefore appear to be unauthorised. Members will be aware that there are a number of properties both within the Yarmouth Conservation Area and other areas generally where the windows have been replaced without consent and this would be a separate matter for the Enforcement Section to pursue if practical. In some cases the replacement windows on other properties have been in place for a considerable length of time and therefore immune from action, although each case would need to be investigated on its merits. It is however obvious from the photographs that the replacement windows clearly appear different from the original timber windows both in terms of the frame detailing, the visible sizes of window frames and the treatment of glazing bars and glass panels. I consider this only emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the window replacements and would not justify approving further unsatisfactory windows.

Whilst I sympathise with the owners desire to replace and upgrade the windows, I consider that the submitted details do not show windows that would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing building or the designated Conservation Area and negotiations have failed to provide any realistic improvement. I therefore consider there is no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal, although the applicant could be invited to reconsider the details with a view to resubmitting the application for replacement windows of a more acceptable design.

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. It is recognised that there may be an interference with the owner’s human rights but this has to be balanced against the duty of the Local Planning Authority to protect or enhance the special character of the Designated Conservation Area. The recommendation to refuse planning permission is considered to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed replacement of the windows in this traditional building within the Designated Conservation Area would not accord with the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan Policy B6 or the Councils duty under the relevant act to pay special attention to the preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of this Designated Conservation Area.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

UN1

The proposed alterations are considered out of character and detrimental to the appearance of this traditional building which is within a designated Conservation Area and would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the current amenity value of the area and, consequently, is considered to be contrary to Policies S10 (Conservation or Enhancement of the Features of Special Areas) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/06502/D P/02195/04 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ashey

Registration Date: 18/10/2004 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Applicant: Mrs R Riding

Demolition of bungalow; outline for residential development with parking & access off Windmill Close (revised scheme)

238 Upton Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333JG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application has generated a significant amount of local opposition and raises a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 21 weeks to the date of the Committee meeting and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications owing to protracted negotiations and the heavy workload currently being handled by the Case Officer.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This is a rectangular shaped site measuring some 45 metres by 40 metres, being situated on the western side of Upton Road immediately south of its junction with Windmill Close. Site is currently occupied by a detached chalet bungalow that it constructed of artificial stone blocks.

To the south and east of application site is countryside, whilst to the west and north-west is a 1970’s cul-de-sac of semi-detached/terraced houses at Windmill Close. Character of immediate area is typical of mixed residential development on the outskirts of a town, whereby views of the countryside are interspersed with a variety of dwellings.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/6502/C – P/1042/04 – Outline for residential development with parking and access off Windmill Close refused 23 August 2004 on the following grounds:

· Poor arrangement of dwellings.

· Remove and potentially affect protected trees.

· Inadequate information in respect of drainage.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline consent is sought for eight houses. Application documents request that siting and means of access are considered at this stage. In this respect, the proposed layout plan shows a terrace of three houses backing onto the southern boundary, one pair of semi-detached houses in the south eastern corner, a further pair in the north eastern corner and a detached unit adjacent the northern boundary. Access is shown to be off Windmill Close adjacent the western boundary of the site that is shared with the neighbouring property at 1 Windmill Close.

Proposed layout plan indicates three areas of communal parking, providing a total number of 10 spaces. Each of the eight dwellings proposed would have its own private garden area. The layout plan also makes provision for an area of informal open space adjacent the Upton Road boundary, which comprises of a 1 metre high natural stone wall. The purpose of this area is to give the impression of a small communal village green, therefore complementing the stone wall and two protected English oaks along the highway boundary. It is also proposed to retain a third protected English oak tree in a more central position as well as evergreen vegetation along the northern boundary with Windmill Close.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) stresses the need to make the best use of previously developed land. Whilst advocating high densities, it is stressed that good design is key in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people will choose to live. It is suggested that housing developments achieve between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, and it is advised that anything less than 30 should be avoided. Greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility, such a major nodes along good quality public transport corridors, is encouraged.

The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) confirms that the site is entirely within, but adjacent, the development envelope boundary as shown on the Ryde inset map. The development envelope boundary extends along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. Relevant policies are as follows:

S1 – New Development will be Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas

S6 – All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development within the Site

D3 – Landscaping

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 – Infill Development

C12 – Developments Affecting Trees and Woodland

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to conditions. He also suggests that the developer should make a financial contribution towards the pending highway improvement scheme at Upton Road. Highway Engineer has also taken the opportunity of commenting on the possibility of providing means of access off Upton Road as opposed to that proposed off Windmill Close. Whilst an access off Upton Road could possibly satisfy highway standards, it should be noted that certain improvement works would be essential to satisfy these standards. Such improvements work would include extensive visibility splays and a new pavement, and are not considered sustainable as they would inevitably result in the removal of protected trees and other vegetation.

Countryside Services Manager has viewed the latest revised layout plan and confirms that the proposal is now acceptable subject to a condition in respect of a protection zone around the protected trees.

Southern Water confirm that the existing foul sewerage system is capable of accommodating flow associated with eight dwellings. However, a hydraulic assessment of existing surface water system suggests that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional surface water flows. It is therefore advised that surface water should be disposed of by alternative means, i.e. soakaways or a local drainage watercourse.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

24 letters and a 52 signature petition have been received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Proposed layout takes little account of Windmill Close.

· Increase in noise would spoil tranquility of area.

· Cluster of houses would spoil edge of countryside location.

· Excessive density.

· Proposed access would spoil rural aspect of Windmill Close.

· Existing congestion on Windmill Close/Upton Road would be exacerbated.

· Inadequate parking.

· Upton Road is already hazardous owing to lack of pavement. Proposal would exacerbate this.

· Access off Upton Road is suggested.

· Inadequate drainage.

· Removal of trees and damage to others.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in this instance relate to principle, density, layout, access, trees, drainage and impact on neighbouring property occupiers. These matters will be considered under separate sub-headings.

Principle

Site is situated within the development envelope boundary for Ryde as identified on the UDP and is regarded as a brownfield site. As the site is not specifically allocated for any purpose, it could also considered a ‘windfall’ site as defined in PPG3. Taking these factors into consideration, it is felt that the principle of residential development on this site is acceptable and consistent with policies G1 and H4 of the UDP.

Density

Members will be aware that policy and guidance both at a central and local level encourages the best use of land, with PPG3 advocating densities of between 30 to 50 dwellings to the hectare and even higher where efficient links to public transport system can be achieved. It is also stated that high densities can be achieved without compromising surrounding environment through careful design. Such advice is echoed in policy H6 of the UDP.

In my opinion, the main determinant regarding density is how the proposed layout would compare and relate to the existing pattern of development in the area and the suitability of likely living conditions for the inhabitants of this development. Whilst a numerical calculation confirms that proposal would amount to some 45 units to the hectare, this should not on its own provide the basis for determining this application. It should be noted, however, that such a density is far from being excessive in numerical terms.

Layout

It is a requirement of policies G4, D1 and D2 that development harmonises with its surroundings through respecting the distinctiveness of the surrounding area, is sympathetic in siting and takes full account of views into and out of the site. The refused layout lacked cohesion; it turned its back onto Upton Road and paid little regard to important trees. Accordingly, the previous scheme conflicted with above policies and was therefore refused.

The revised layout under consideration has been designed in such a way that the proposal would relate well to the pattern of Windmill Close, would pay due regard to views into the site from Upton Road and would take account of protected trees. In more detail, proposed layout allows for a terrace of three houses that would follow the alignment of adjoining terraces in Windmill Close. The two pairs of semi-detached houses in proximity to the eastern boundary would be arranged with a duel aspect in order to create a sense of place insofar as the proposed cul-de-sac is concerned without neglecting important views into the site from Upton Road. Such arrangement would be enhanced by a small area of communal open space immediately behind the natural stone wall and two protected oak trees. This area would maintain a feeling of spaciousness whilst also relating well to the adjoining countryside. The eighth unit is a detached dwelling that would adjoin the access point into the site. Revised plans show that this unit has been moved slightly away from the northern boundary in order to minimise impact on the vegetation along this boundary.

Taking the above points into consideration, I am of the view that the proposed layout would allow for eight units to be comfortably accommodated on this site, whilst paying due regard to the pattern of development at Windmill Close and to the character and appearance of adjoining countryside. It is therefore my opinion that the proposal strikes an acceptable balance in terms of making best use of this brownfield site without compromising the character of the surrounding environment.

Access

The formation of an access off Windmill Close and the resultant traffic generation is of concern to many of the local residents. In terms of highway safety, Highway Engineer confirms that proposed access would easily satisfy the relevant standards in this respect, and therefore complies with policy TR7. He also indicates that the level of parking proposed, that being 10 spaces, is consistent with the requirements of policy TR16. Once again, it is felt that the level of parking proposed strikes an acceptable balance of providing enough to meet the needs of future inhabitants, without compromising the objective of reducing the reliance on the motor car.

It is inevitable that a development of this size would result in additional traffic movements. However, given that the new access onto Windmill Close would be in close proximity to its junction with Upton Road, I do not believe that the resultant disturbance to Windmill Close residents would be that significant. Therefore, bearing in mind that the access point is considered to satisfy highway standards and that proposed parking provision accords with guidelines in respect of Zone 3, it is my view that there are no sustainable reasons to resist this development on highway grounds. Highway Engineer is also of the view that the junction at Windmill Close and Upton Road is sufficient to accommodate additional traffic movements. However, given characteristics of Upton Road and additional highway activity that would result, it is considered that developer should make a contribution towards pending highway improvement works, particularly traffic calming measures in proximity to the Windmill Close junction.

Members should note that an alternative access onto Upton Road had been suggested. Whilst the Highway Engineer would not necessarily object to the principle of this, he would demand maximum visibility splays and other alterations to Upton Road that would render the development unacceptable on other grounds. Besides this, the applicant has requested that Members determine the scheme with access off Windmill Close. As there are no sustainable reasons to resist such an access, there is no reason whatsoever to pursue an access onto Upton Road which, as discussed, is likely to be unacceptable on other grounds.

Trees

A Tree Preservation Order was served in respect of seven individual trees during the processing of the previous application. This was subject of an appeal to the Regulatory Appeals Committee, whom resolved to amend the order so that only three oak trees are now protected. The Council’s Countryside Services Manager has viewed the application and accompanying tree report, and states that proposal would not, in his opinion, undermine the health or stability of trees subject to a condition regarding exclusion zones during construction work.

Drainage

Applicant has submitted the results of a capacity study that was carried out by Southern Water. This concludes that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the foul sewage associated with the eight dwellings as proposed. However, the capacity study does reveal that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate any additional surface water flow into the existing system. Southern Water therefore suggests that the applicant considers alternative means of disposal, either soakaways or a local drainage watercourse. The preferred option would be via soakaways, but ground conditions would need to be tested in order to judge percolation value. Should ground conditions not be conducive to soakaways then Southern Water have confirmed that the developer could provide suitable attenuation measures so that surface water can be discharged at an appropriate rate into the existing system.

I believe that a sufficient level of information has been submitted at this outline stage without the need to delay this application any further on drainage grounds. An acceptable capacity study has been carried out in respect of foul sewage and I believe that surface water drainage can be adequately controlled through condition. I am therefore satisfied that proposal is consistent with policy U11 of the UDP.

Impact on Adjoining Properties

As discussed above, the proposed layout would accord with the prevailing pattern of development in Windmill Close and, in my opinion, would not detract from the amenities or privacy of adjoining property occupiers. Matters relating to scale, mass and design will be considered at the reserved matters stage.

To conclude, it is considered that the application site is of a sufficient size to accommodate eight houses without having a detrimental effect on the amenities of nearby property occupiers or the character of the area in general. I am of the opinion that the layout proposed is efficient in terms of making best use of this brownfield site whilst paying due regard to the location of this site on the periphery of Ryde. Accordingly, proposal is consistent with UDP policies.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to balanced with the right of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposal would result in the efficient and sustainable use of this brownfield site without detracting from amenities of neighbouring property occupiers or the character of area in general. I believe that siting would pay due regard to the prevailing pattern of development and that the proposed access would not add unduly to the hazards of other highway users. The proposal has been arranged in such a fashion so that the health and stability of the protected trees would not be undermined. I am also satisfied that the site can be adequately drained. Accordingly, the proposal complies with UDP policies and adequately addresses reasons for previous refusal on this site.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

(Subject to a condition which requires the developer to enter into a Section 106 Agreement prior to the works commencing covering a financial contribution of £10,000 towards traffic calming and highway improvement works at Upton Road, and to comply with Policies TR7 and TR13 of the Unitary Development Plan.)

Conditions/Reasons:

The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) (a) - (d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said planning obligation will provide for:

· A contribution of £10,000 towards planned highway improvement works and traffic calming at Upton Road.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and TR13 (Highway Improvements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2	Time limit - outline - A01

3	Time limit - reserved - A02

5	Surface water drainage and disposal - V01

The trees as indicated T1, T4 and T7 on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained and protected. The recommendations contained in British Standard 5837 (Trees in Relation to Construction) shall be followed. In particular: -

Prior to the commencement of the development and before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought to the site for the purposes of the development and until final completion of the development and the site is otherwise clear of building equipment and surplus materials:

· The retained trees are not to be felled or pruned, or otherwise damaged, without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

· A protection zone around the trees as to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before work commences shall be adhered to. Alterations to the limits of the protection zones may be allowed following written approval of the revision by the Local Planning Authority, so long as it is still in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard 5837 (clauses 7 and 8).

Within the protection zone nothing shall be stored or placed, no vehicles shall gain access, the ground levels shall not be altered, no excavation shall be made and no structure shall be erected, without the express written authorisation of the Local Planning Authority.

· The limits of the protection zones shall be defined by the construction of a continuous boundary fence along all edges thereof. This fence shall be a firmly installed scaffold pole vertical and horizontal framework, well braced and supporting 'Heras' type fencing of at least 2.4 metres in height an alternative fence type may be allowed following written approval of the revision by the Local Planning Authority, so long as it is still in accordance with British Standard 5837 (clauses 7 and 8).

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the approved dwellings does not undermine the health or stability of the protected trees and to comply with policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until the parts of the service roads which provide access to it have been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for 11 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn 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.

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a plan indicating the position of the proposed access allowing adequate pedestrian visibility splays to the north shall be submitted to, approved by and thereafter constructed and maintained in accordance with the agreed scheme.

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.

11	The means of vehicular access to the approved houses shall be from Windmill Close only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

12	Visibility and sight lines - J20

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. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings 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.

TCP/14203/D P/00255/03 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 18/02/2003 - Invalid

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Togher Estates Ltd

Change of use of agricultural land to form a golf course; outline for clubhouse, shop, staff accommodation, maintenance facilities, car park and access road

land off, Chawton Lane, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application involves a major development and the submission was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Therefore, in accordance with adopted procedures, the application falls to be determined by the Development Control Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major submission, the processing of which will have taken approximately two years and one month to the date of the Committee Meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 16 week period for determination of planning applications accompanied by an Environmental Statement due to the need for the submission of further details and protracted discussions over a number of aspects of this proposal, particularly the archaeological interest in the area, which have been further delayed by Case Officer work load.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to substantial area of land, amounting to approximately 55 hectares, presently in agricultural use. The site lies on the eastern side of Newport Road, to south of Northwood. The two fields closest to Newport Road, straddle Chawton Lane which runs in an easterly direction from the main road, serving collection of dwellings and Church within the hamlet of Chawton. Footpath runs north from settlement of Chawton, through site, cutting across eastern end of Coronation Avenue.

Boundary to Newport Road is defined by hedgerow with further hedgerows defining field boundaries and subdividing the site. Strip of land, approximately 130 metres wide, separates the eastern boundary of site from cycle path which runs between Newport and Cowes. A belt of trees within Long Copse runs along southern boundary at eastern end of site with further copse, Sheep Wash Copse, located to east of Chawton, outside of but immediately abutting the site boundary. Water Close, to north again is again outside of but abuts large part of northern boundary to site.

Newport Road effectively runs along ridge of western side of Medina Valley and land to the east of the road, including the application site, falls in easterly direction to Medina Estuary at foot of valley. Residential development on the southern edge of Northwood abuts north western corner of application site with the Military Museum immediately to the south of the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is no history in respect of the site area which is directly relevant to the current proposal. However, land to the south was the subject of a planning application (reference TCP/9560/F - IW/P/39896) for the creation of a military museum which was conditionally approved in September 1996. This proposal involved improvements to the highway access to the site and the consent has now been implemented.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks planning permission for change of use of land to form golf course and outline consent for a clubhouse, shop, staff accommodation, maintenance facilities, car park and access road. Application forms indicate that matters to be considered at outline stage include external appearance, siting, design and means of access with only landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. However, applicant's agent has subsequently confirmed that only siting and means of access are to be considered at this stage.

The plans which accompany the submission show a provisional layout for an 18 hole golf course with practice area immediately to north west of Chawton. The car park and clubhouse building are shown to be located at western end of site, close to frontage of site with Newport Road. Maintenance building is shown to be located within area of land on northern edge of course.

Submitted plans also provide illustrative details of the clubhouse building, which would provide accommodation on single level comprising club room with ancillary bar and kitchen facilities, male and female changing rooms, shop and staff accommodation comprising living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms.

Subsequent to submission of the application, further plans were received showing highway improvements at the junction of Newport Road and Chawton Lane. These would involve removal of substantial section of hedgerow on Newport Road frontage, widening of the carriageway to facilitate the provision of a right hand turn lane for vehicles approaching from the south. In addition, Chawton Lane would be widened to 5.5 metres between its junction with Newport Road and the entrance to the golf course car park. Hedgerows would be replanted on the back edge of the visibility splay formed by the highway improvements.

The proposal involves category of development which appears in Column 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and the site area exceeds the specified threshold of one hectare in Column 2 therein. Circular 02/99-Environmental Impact Assessment advises that new 18 hole golf courses are likely to require EIA and that the main impacts are likely to be those on the surrounding hydrology, ecosystems and landscape, as well as those from traffic generation. Accordingly, the applicant was required to produce an Environmental Statement to accompany this submission.

The Environmental Statement which accompanies the submission addresses a wide range of issues associated with the proposal including predicted environmental effects, landscape character, visual amenity, traffic and highways, noise, air quality, hydrology and drainage, ecology, archaeology and other issues including community impacts. The document contains a non-technical summary which is attached to this report as an appendix. A full copy of the Environmental Statement is available on request.

Subsequent to receipt of the original submission, a further report was submitted providing details of a walkover archaeological survey and assessment of the site. A letter has also been submitted by the applicant's agent setting out the history of this application and commenting further on the archaeological issues. This letter is attached to this report as an appendix.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation contains guidance on issues relating to provision of open space, sport and recreation facilities. The Guidance Note acknowledges that open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin peoples quality of life and that well designed and implemented planning policies in this respect are fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives including supporting an urban Renaissance, supporting a rural renewal, the promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion, health and well-being and promoting more sustainable development. In terms of rural areas, the guidance note advises that those sports and recreational facilities which are likely to attract significant numbers of participants or spectators should be located in or on the edge of, county towns. Furthermore, it advises that developments will require special justification if they are to be located in open countryside, although proposals for farm diversification involving sports and recreation activities should be given favourable consideration. All development in rural areas should be designed and sited with great care and sensitivity to its rural location.

Planning policy guidance note 16 (PPG16) – Archaeology Planning provides guidance on and sets out the Secretary of State’s policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should be preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside. The advice also relates to the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries under the development plan and control systems, including the weight to be given to them in planning decisions and the use of planning conditions. The guidance note highlights the importance of archaeological remains and the fact that they are irreplaceable. In particular, the guidance note states as follows:

“Archaeological remains should be seen as a finite and non-renewable resource, in many cases highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. Appropriate management is therefore essential to ensure that they survive in good condition. In particular, care must be taken to ensure that archaeological remains are not needlessly or thoughtlessly destroyed. They can contain irreplaceable information about our past and potential for an increase in future knowledge. They are part of our sense of national identity and are valuable both for their own sake and for their role in education, leisure and tourism.”

The guidance note acknowledges that it may not be possible to save all archaeological remains but that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether schedule or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation. In some case, where the archaeological remains are of lesser importance it will be necessary to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors including the need for the proposed development.

The site is located outside the development envelope, although part of the site (north western corner) immediately abuts the development boundary which encloses the southern most edge of Northwood. The area within the immediate vicinity of the site is subject to a number of designations in recognition of their importance for scientific and nature conservation. Those within or immediately adjacent the application include Great Werrar Wood and Long Copse to the south of the site, part of which is within the site boundary, and Water Close Copse to north of and immediately adjacent the application site. Both of these areas are ancient woodlands and designated as sites of importance for nature conservation. In addition, although not immediately adjacent the application, the area on the western bank of the Medina Estuary is designated as a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and the estuary forms part of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA), candidate Special Area for Conservation (cSAC) and RAMSAR site. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

· S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

· S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

· S5 – Proposals for development which on balance (bearing in mind all the Part 2 policies), will be of overall benefit to the island by enhancing the economic, social and environmental position will be approved provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

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

· S10 – In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

· G1 – Development envelopes for towns and villages.

· G4 – General Locational Criteria for development

· G5 – Development outside defined settlements

· G10 – Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses.

· D1 – Standards of Design.

· B9 – Protection of Archaeological Heritage.

· H9 – Residential Development outside Development Boundaries.

· T1 – The promotion of tourism and the extension of the season.

· T2 – Tourism related development (other than accommodation)

· C1 – Protection of landscape character.

· C7 – River corridors and estuaries

· C8 – Nature Conservation as a material consideration.

· C9 – Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

· C10 –Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

· C11 – Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

· C13 – Hedgerows

· C14 – Safeguarding best agricultural land.

· P2 – Minimising contamination from development.

· TR7 – Highway Considerations of new development.

· TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

· L2 – Formal Recreation provision.

· L7 – Golf Course Development

The site falls within the Medina Valley which is the subject of supplementary planning guidance in respect of Cowes Waterfront and a Vision for the Medina Valley. The purpose of the document is largely to provide a vision for the Medina Valley and builds on the area’s existing strengths with the aim of diversifying the valley’s economy in order to maximize new opportunities and enhance sustainability. A further aim is to raise the profile of the Medina Valley, boost its status and secure new opportunities for local people. The document identifies a number of key priorities, which were identified by local people during the consultation process, and includes increasing the Medina Valley’s contribution to the role of tourism in the wider economy of the Island and ensuring that the Island benefits from its large number of visitors as well as maintaining and enhancing the substantial unique environmental resources of the area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer

Initial comments from the Highway Engineer indicated that he has no objection in principle to the proposal but that the plans which accompanied the original submission did not include a detailed design of the proposed junction improvements which would enable him to recommend approval at the time of his initial comments. He advised that the detailed design should show a right turn lane, deceleration lane, re-sited footways, road markings, construction layers, tactile crossings, drainage, car parking layout, visibility splays and relocated hedgerows.

Following submission of additional plans providing details of improvements at the junction of Newport Road and Chawton Lane, further consultations were carried out with the Highways Engineer. As a result, I am advised that the principle of the design appears to be acceptable and the right turn lane would need to be the subject of a Section 278 Agreement with the Council.

Countryside Access Manager

The Council’s Countryside Access Manager expresses serious concerns about the proposal as submitted for the following reasons:

Two of the fairways cross public footpath CS21 which will cause conflict between walkers and golfers.
There appears to be an intention to remove hedges adjacent to the footpath which would detract from public’s enjoyment of the way.

Ecology Officer

The Council’s Ecology Officer considers that there will be both environmental benefits and dis-benefits from this proposal. In terms of the advantages, he comments that the land will be taken out of arable and converted to permanent grassland, there will be new tree and shrub planting, providing linkages between existing woodland SINCs, and the golf course could be managed in a way that allows wildlife to thrive in the less intensively managed roughs. The disadvantages are that there will be much greater activity, and hence disturbance, of the land with a loss of some hedgerows and there is potential to influence the hydrological regime of the Medina Estuary through run off from the site.

Of the impacts detailed above, he considers the most important one to address is that of potential impacts upon water quality and quantity affecting the adjoining Medina Estuary, which has both National and European nature conservation designations. He comments that the Environmental Statement quite correctly recognises that mitigation of the hydrological impacts identified would rely on a robust estimation of the site’s hydrological regime, in terms of flood discharge in key channels at design return period. In this respect, he notes that the ES advises some modeling work needs to be carried out in order to quantify and address the hydrological impacts. However, none of this site specific information has been presented in the statement. He notes that the original proposal included two balancing ponds at the bottom of the site which would serve as water holding bodies but that the intention was also that they would be planted with reeds to act as water filtration and purification structures. He notes that these elements have been omitted from the scheme in the light of representations from the Environment Agency.

Ecology Officer considers that details of run off from the site into the Medina have yet to be adequately addressed and it is not possible to be confident that the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the sSAC and SSSI. Consequently, at this stage, he considers that the information supporting the proposals is inadequate to determine the application.

Environmental Health Department

The Principal Environmental Health Officer advised that he has no adverse comment in respect of the application. However, he requested that the applicant be advised that, if planning approval is given, under Section 49 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, they must notify the Health and Safety Section of the Employment of Persons at work.

County Archaeologist

The County Archaeologist advised that the application concerns a site of archaeological importance as recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Record. This record shows the prehistoric flint scatters of potentially national importance lie within the development site and that there are also a large number of prehistoric remains recorded just beyond the eastern boundary and it is extremely likely that nationally important prehistoric remains lie within the extensive area of the proposed development.

The County Archaeologist indicated that, as part of the pre-application consultations, she informed the developer’s agent in writing of the archaeological importance of the site and the need for a pre-determination archaeological evaluation which should form part of the Environmental Statement in order that sufficient information was provided to enable the Council to make an informed planning decision. However, she does not consider that the Environmental Statement adequately addressed this issue. In particular, she notes that the document states erroneously that significant finds are unlikely and that the golf course construction will not cause too much disturbance. In particular, her experience indicates that the impact of golf courses upon archaeologically remains has shown both that prehistoric remains are likely to survive within the top few centimeters below the ground surface and that the extensive landscaping works required for such a large golf course will destroy and damage any archaeological remains present. In addition, the presence of a large club house could also cause significant destruction to fragile below ground remains.

In concluding her initial comments, she reiterated her recommendation that it is highly likely that nationally important prehistoric remains are present on this site and that the developer should be required to provide the results of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation so that the Council may make an informed planning decision about the archaeological impact of the proposed development.

Following receipt of a report prepared on behalf of the applicants, providing details of a walkover archaeological survey and assessment, further comments were sought from the County Archaeologist. She advised that the submitted report only contains the results of a single stage archaeological field walkover survey, whilst the brief for archaeological work and recommended procedures previously sent to the developer, clearly stated that a two stage archaeological evaluation was required to provide information on location, extent, date, condition, nature and importance of any archaeological remains that may be present. She advised that field walking as an archaeological technique is extremely limited and is usually only used to locate general areas of below ground remains. It does not provide enough information in this instance to allow a reasonable planning decision to be made. She considered that, although the results contained within the report are suitable for the first stage of a pre-determination evaluation, it is essential that the second stage including more invasive techniques such as geo-physical survey and trial trenching are undertaken on the site in order to address the below ground remains.

With regard to the report submitted, she considered that it provided some useful information which could be used to target the application of the second stage techniques at specific areas of remains. In particular, the report shows that a previously unknown complex of substantial Roman buildings of high status are present within the site. This complex could be a previously unknown Roman villa and is deemed to be of national importance. However, more information would be required to be provided by the developer in the form of the results of a programme of geo-physical survey to locate the extent of the buried remains, followed by a programme of targeted trial trenches to investigate the date, nature, condition and importance. In addition, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Saxon and Medieval remains were identified and require further archaeological investigation, again involving a programme of geo-physical survey followed by a programme of targeted trial trenches.

The County Archaeologist concluded that the submitted report did not provide enough information to make an informed planning decision on the impact of the development on archaeological remains. She does not consider that the applicants have followed the recommended procedures and that a written specification must be approved by the County Archaeology Service to insure that the proposed archaeological work is appropriate. No such specification was received, resulting in the developer commissioning a 1 Stage Field Walking Survey which did not provide enough information to make an informed planning decision. Therefore, further survey work is required in line with the recommendations laid down by the County Archaeologist.

English Nature

English Nature advised that under the Conservation (Natural Habitats and c.) Regulations 1994, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site for nature conservation. In their opinion, the change of use from agriculture land to a golf course is neither directly connected with nor necessary to the nature conservation management of the Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA/RAMSAR site. In addition, they advise that it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development is likely to have significant affect on the SAC, SPA/RAMSAR site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. In this respect, they express the opinion that the proposed works are not likely to have a significant effect on the European designated areas adjacent the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

In relation to the Medina Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), English Nature are of the opinion that the proposed development will not result in significant damage to the SSSI.

In terms of the wider countryside, they consider that the management of golf courses can have potential significant impacts. However, they comment that the proposal on page 100 of the Environmental Statement which accompanies the submission suggests the right approach for management of the site. Therefore, they would request that a management plan be developed through a condition or Section 106 Agreement whichever is the most appropriate, to ensure that the golf course is managed in the most appropriate way for wildlife.

Finally, English Nature advised that they are the licencing authority for badger sett interference, including obstruction, damage or destruction, or disturbance to badger sets, which will result from land development.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency initially placed a holding objection on the proposal as they considered that the development would result in significant alterations to the existing wetland habitat and insufficient information had been submitted detailing the design of the proposed ponds on the site or the effects on local hydrological regime. In this respect, they commented that the existing streams in the site have inherent nature conservation value and that they discharge to designated estuarine habitats of the Medina Estuary (SSSI, SPA, cSAC, RAMSAR), any change in the flow regime of fresh water inputs to the Medina estuary may have the potential to significantly affect interest features of the designated area. General advice was also offered regarding proposals to fill, divert or culvert any water course.

Following receipt of further information supplied by the applicant’s agent, including the removal of the on line balancing ponds, the Environment Agency advised that it was able to remove its holding objection. However, they recommended several conditions, should Members be minded to approve the application.

Sport England

Sport England advise that their planning policy objective on golf facilities presents its position with regard to such development. This policy is as follows:

“To support the development in appropriate locations of additional facilities for golf which meet and identify need and in particular encourage the provision of ‘pay and play’ facilities.”

Given this policy, Sport England did not wish to raise an objection to the application. However, they indicated that they are unable to provide full support to the development of the golf course in line with their policy, due to the limited information received at the time of commenting.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Consultations with DEFRA indicate that the land in question is Grade 3 Agricultural Land.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted 23 letters from and on behalf of local residents together with letters from a Member of the Council for the adjoining Ward, Councillor Mundy, the Ramblers Association and the Isle of Wight Military Museum. Whilst a number of letters from local residents indicate that they do not object in principle to a golf course, the majority of residents objected and/or raised concerns with regard to the proposal on grounds which can be summarized as follows:

· Whilst golf course may be appropriate diversification of agricultural land preserving a green gap between Newport and Northwood, concern is expressed that area may be subject to further application for housing, employment related and retail development.

· Proposal forms part of pattern of creeping encroachment on a relatively unspoilt area of countryside.

· Land should remain in agricultural use to prevent merging of urban areas.

· Proposal would result in new built development in the countryside including a dwelling.

· New development should be restricted to the main Island towns.

· Significant impact on Medina Valley landscape.

· Site is within area of archaeological importance – need to assess fully the impact on archaeology. Proposal would result in damage or destruction of archaeological remains on certain parts of site.

· No evidence that tree survey carried out.

· Impact on wildlife including bats, badgers, squirrels etc. area inhabited by moles and rabbits which will be damaging to maintenance of golf course. Site provides habitat for adders, slow-worms, newts and other invertebrate.

· Hedgerows should be retained in the interest of wildlife.

· Site borders an SSSI and forms part of Medina Valley environs – proposal would have adverse impact on ecology.

· Chemicals used in maintaining the golf course will find way into sensitive areas along estuary.

· Proposal would result in loss of best and versatile agricultural land.

· Site may become dumping ground for spoil and landfill.

· Site surrounds quiet settlement of Chawton which is historic area.

· Adverse impact on privacy and amenities of nearby properties including hazard from stray golf balls.

· Location of practice area could give rise to disturbance and light pollution to residents of Chawton.

· Submission shows lack of recognition for listed buildings adjacent site.

· Noise/disturbance from use of club house.

· Traffic generation/congestion – alterations to junction of Chawton Lane and main road inadequate to accommodate traffic generated by the development – suggestions made in Environmental Statement do not address issue of right turn across traffic flows.

· Traffic survey was not carried out at height of season thereby giving misleading information.

· Already sufficient golf courses on Island and this area is well served by Cowes Golf Course – viability of proposal questioned. Speculation over possible closure and redevelopment of Cowes Golf Course.

· Public footpaths must remain open at all times.

· Layout of golf course would result in fairways being separated by footpaths which cross the site creating hazard for walkers.

· Golf balls may strike vehicles on main road causing hazard – holes close to main road will necessitate high unsightly netting.

· Possible obstruction of or damage to services crossing site.

· Concern expressed that if started golf course may not be completed with possible change to another type of development.

· Proposed car park facility appears to be inadequate.

· Submission contains inaccurate and misleading information.

· Method of disposal of foul waste questioned.

Letter was received from Wight Wildlife commending the consultants, organizations and individuals involved with the application as it seems to have addressed major issues arising from the proposal with regard to the environment and nature conservation. However, they commented on two aspects of the proposals as follows:

· They would encourage positive management of grassland between development and railway track as this could provide a valuable habitat to augment the management of roughs formed on the course itself.

· Design should incorporate hedges between copses in the interest of wildlife (red squirrels and dormice) which can be achieved without compromising the function of the golf course.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The determining factors in considering the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle and whether the development would be likely to have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character, features of archaeological importance, the wildlife and ecology of the area, particularly the Medina estuary which is designated as an SSSI and forms part of a larger area which is subject to European designations. In addition, it is necessary to have regard for the highway implications associated with the proposal and the likely impact on the amenities of properties within the area.

The formation of a golf course clearly requires a substantial area of land which could not easily be accommodated within the defined settlements and, consequently, it is accepted that this type of development requires a rural location. However, in the interests of sustainability, I consider that such facilities should be located where they are easily accessible and preferably immediately adjacent a defined settlement. In this respect, in accordance with Policy L2 of the UDP – Formal Recreation Provision, proposals for recreational facilities will be considered acceptable in principle provided that they are located within or adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and proposals comply with the criteria set out in the policy, namely there are no un-resolvable traffic problems, conditions limiting hours of use are applied where necessary and that they do not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity. In addition, Policy L7 – Golf Course Development is considered to be particularly relevant to this proposal. In accordance with this policy, golf course and appropriate associated development will only be approved where:

· The development does not have a detrimental impact and consequently protects any designated wildlife habitat.

· Existing landscaped features are maintained.

· There is no loss of high quality agricultural land.

· Within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the landscape is protected and enhanced.

Site lies on a main thoroughfare between Cowes and Newport and is immediately adjacent the settlement of Northwood. Having regard to these factors, I consider this to be an appropriate location for a golf course facility and, subject to highway improvements, that adequate access arrangements could be achieved. In this respect, the Highway Engineer has indicated that the road widening and traffic arrangements shown on plans submitted on behalf of the applicant would provide acceptable access arrangements. Whilst some concern has been expressed with regard to conflict between traffic generated by the proposal and use of Chawton Lane, Members will note that the entrance into the car park to the facility off the lane is located some 80 metres east of its junction with Newport Road, Therefore, any conflict that may arise would be limited to the upper section of Chawton Lane with the majority of the lane remaining undisturbed.

It is accepted that the change of use of this land to a golf course is likely to have quite a significant impact on the appearance of the site and the wider area. However, site is currently managed for agricultural purposes and the proposal would result in the land being converted to permanent grassland with the planting of new trees and shrubs, the species of which can be controlled to those natives of the area, which would arguably improve the quality of the landscape and its contribution to the Medina Valley. Furthermore, the golf course could be managed in a way which allows wildlife to thrive in less intensely managed roughs. Therefore, the greatest impact on wildlife would be likely to occur during the construction of the golf course.

Following consultations with DEFRA, it has been established that the land in this area is generally Grade 3 Agricultural Land. The explanatory text to Policy C14 in the UDP draws attention to the advice contained in PPG7, now superseded by PPS7, which advocates that the presence of best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in Grades 1, 2 and 3A of the Agricultural Land classification), should be taken into account alongside other sustainable considerations when determining planning applications. PPS7 advises that little weight in agricultural terms should be given to the loss of agricultural land in Grades 3B, 4 and 5, except in areas where particularly agricultural practices may themselves contribute in some special way to the quality and character of the environment or the local economy.

In locational terms, I consider that the proposal satisfies the criteria contained in Policy L2 of the UDP and that the proposal is generally acceptable in principle.

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the development is of a type and scale which required the submission of an Environmental Statement. Circular 02/99-Environmental Impact Assessment, provides additional guidance on the application of the regulations and those circumstances where significant effects are likely to arise and an indication of the likely effects for a variety of types of development. In the case of golf course development, the Circular identifies the main impacts which are likely to arise as those on the surrounding hydrology, ecosystems, landscape, as well as those from traffic generation. In the case of hydrology and drainage, the Environmental Statement which accompanies this submission acknowledges that impacts on hydrology and the drainage regime of the site are likely to occur during the construction and operational phase of the development. In terms of the operational phase, such impacts could arise through pollutants from vehicles using the car park or through potential for changes in the chemistry for site run off due to use of fertilizers and pesticides in maintenance of the course. Given the topography of the area, such run offs are highly likely to discharge to the River Medina, which is subject to a number of designations for its ecological importance.

I am satisfied that the potential for contamination from vehicles using the car park is relatively limited and that this can be adequately addressed through use of interceptors in any drainage system. With regard to the control of surface water runoff from the site in general, the report suggests that it should be possible to attenuate surface water runoff from the site to ensure that discharge does not exceed present levels and that this could be achieved by storage ponds (possible water features) or oversize collector pipes. In terms of filtration of the runoff, the report suggests that reed beds could be used in the vicinity of the disused railway embankment in order to mitigate the effects of any fertilizer and pesticides which reach this area by direct surface water transport, or slow leaching to the channels. However, the Environmental Statement is somewhat vague in terms of the exact method to be employed in this respect. In addition, the Environmental Statement advises that some modeling work needs to be carried out in order to quantify and address the hydrological impacts. However, none of this site’s specific information has been presented in the report and, following consultation with the Council’s Ecology Officer, he considers that further information would be required in order to assess fully the likely impact on the designated areas.

The Environmental Statement acknowledges that there are features of archaeological interest within the site. However, the County Archaeologist did not consider that this information adequately addressed the issue of archaeology within this site and believes that it is likely that nationally important prehistoric remains are present in this area and therefore recommended that the results of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation were submitted to the Council in order to make and informed planning decision about the archaeological impact of the development. A further report prepared on behalf of the applicants was submitted to the Authority providing details of a walkover archaeological survey and assessment of the site. However, the County Archaeologist was of the opinion that this report still failed to adequately address the issue of archaeology within this site and that a further, more invasive, survey was required which would involve digging trenches across parts of the site.

Following receipt of a comprehensive letter from the applicant’s agents setting out the history of this application, the County Archaeologist was given the opportunity to respond to the comments contained therein. Whilst most of the issues raised by the applicants agent related to procedural issues during the consideration of this application, the main issue relevant to the consideration of this application is the importance of the archaeological remains and the appropriate time for this matter to be investigated. In this respect, attention is drawn to English Heritage’s guidance statement on golf course proposals in historic landscape which clearly states:

“The Local Planning Authority will need enough information to be able …… to gauge the impact of the proposal and its overall acceptability. Even if an EIA is not required, the Planning Authority will still require suitable detailed information. A course layout plan and covering letter extolling its virtues will hardly suffice. Developers should be encouraged early in the process to produce impact assessments voluntarily. Failure to do so would result in repeated requests for further information, or even refusals on the basis of insufficient information.”

The English Heritage Guidance Note sets out the contents of perspective impact assessments which are required for the Local Planning Authority to be able to assess the impact of development. It clearly states, in agreement with PPG16 and the UDP Policy, that the failure to provide sufficient information is grounds for repeated requests or refusal of planning permission. In the case of the current proposal, some five months prior to the submission of the planning application, the County Archaeologist wrote to the company responsible for the preparation of the Environmental Statement clearly setting out the entries on the County Sites and Monuments Record and identifying the need for a pre-determination archaeological evaluation. Her letter was accompanied by a copy of the recommended procedures outlining the steps necessary for the developer to provide the results of such a programme of archaeological evaluation. To date, despite the early involvement of the County Archaeologist in this scheme the necessary information to fully consider the effects of the development on archaeology within the site has not bee forthcoming.

The applicant’s agent argues that the golf course development will be a non-invasive landscape exercise which is contrary to both the experience of the County Archaeologist and the English Heritage Guidance Statement which shows that ground modeling can cause serious physical destruction to below ground deposits. The archeological resource is non-renewable and has been shown to extend into the plough soil right up to modern ground surface, a view supported by the Field Walking Report commissioned by the applicant. Consequently, any minor and/or major earth disturbance activities will disturb remains of archaeological importance. The applicant's agents has cited an example where his client developed a site on the mainland with a large office development where they, their consultants and their contractors worked in close liaison with the Museum of London during the contract and with their help and co-operation, were able to preserve and protect many important finds in, and around the construction. The County Archaeologist is aware of this case and the fact that no pre-determination evaluation was required due to the lack of nationally important remains on the site. However, in the case of the application site, the Archaeological Field Walking Survey commissioned by the applicant has indicated that at least three sites of national importance, including buried human remains, exist on the site. Therefore, whilst in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to grant planning permission subject to a requirement that the developer affords access to an archaeologist nominated by the Local Planning Authority to record finds of archaeological importance in this instance, given the importance of the remains involved, this would not be an appropriate approach. Consequently, it is essential that the developer provides sufficient information for the Authority to determine the depth, extent and location of the remains in question. Furthermore, there is a clear presumption in favour of preservation in situ for nationally important remains and UDP Policy B9 clearly states that developments which would damage the site or setting of nationally important remains will not be permitted. Having regard to these factors, the County Archaeologist has recommended that the lack of further information to allow the Local Planning to determine the impact of the development on archaeology in this area should result in the refusal of the application.

Concern has been expressed that creation of a golf course in this area could pose hazard to users of a footpath which crosses the site and vehicles using Chawton Lane and Newport Road, together with potential damage to properties adjacent the site and injury to residents as a result of stray golf balls. With regard to issues relating to footpath, it is not uncommon for footpaths to cross golf course and, on the Island alone occurs at the golf courses at Sandown, Ryde, Ventnor and Freshwater. Following investigations in this respect, it is understood that instances where users of the footpath are struck by golf balls occurs rarely. Furthermore, it would obviously be necessary for golfers to apply caution when driving across the area traversed by a footpath. In the case of Cowes golf course, the site shares a substantial length of boundary with properties fronting baring Road with a large number of properties in Crossfield Avenue also immediately abutting the site. I consider that the potential risk to persons and property can be minimized through the design and landscaping of the golf course. Therefore, I do not consider objections on these grounds to be sustainable.

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 referred to in this report, I consider that the site represents an appropriate location for a golf course immediately adjacent a principle settlement and that, subject to appropriate road improvements, traffic likely to be generated by such use can be accommodated without significantly impacting on traffic flows along the main Newport Road or creating undue hazard to highway users. However, I consider that the information accompanying the submission, including the Environmental Statement, fails to adequately address archaeology within this site or the effect on the hydrological and drainage regime and consequential impact on the Medina Estuary, which is subject to a number of designations for its scientific and nature conservation interests. In consequence, I consider the proposal conflicts with a number of policies of the Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in PPG16 in respect of archaeology.

RECOMMENDATION - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation of the site in order to determine the depth, extent and location of remains within the site and the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on archaeological remains of national importance. Consequently, in the absence of further details it is considered that the proposal is contrary to advice contained in PPG16 - Archaeology and Planning and Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The site lies to the west of and to close proximity to the Medina Estuary which is designated as a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is part of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA), candidate Special area of Conservation (cSAC) and RAMSAR. The information accompanying the application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the effect of the proposed development on the hydrological and drainage regime within the site and appropriate mitigation to safeguard against potential adverse impacts on the designated areas so the Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the features of special interest within the estuary. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/14661/D P/01832/04 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date: 31/08/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Peacock Homes (IOW) Ltd.

Erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses & a terrace of three houses with parking and access off Bannock Road

land adjoining and rear of Whinscott, Bannock Road, Whitwell, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The site is located in an area where a number of applications have been submitted on adjoining sites and this proposal has become particularly contentious, attracting a number of letters of objection from local residents, and raising a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to negotiations with the applicant’s architect with regard to various aspects of the scheme, particularly the provision of affordable housing, and case officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land, the main body of which is roughly rectangular, located on northern side of Bannock Road, approximately 90 metres west of its junction with Whitwell High Street. The site has an area of approximately 1600 square metres with limited frontage to Bannock Road, measuring approximately 10 metres. The site would be accessed from Bannock Road over an access road running alongside existing property known as Whinscot, beyond which site opens out with width of approximately 24 metres. The site has an overall depth of 85 metres, including the narrow strip of land alongside the existing property over which access to site is gained.

The site previously formed part of curtilage to dwelling fronting Bannock Road and is enclosed by a mixture of close boarded fencing and hedgerows. Site also includes part of curtilage to adjacent property. Site has very gentle fall in southerly direction, although this is barely discernible.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14661/B – P/01013/02 – Outline planning permission for three dwellings and formation of vehicular access conditionally approved May 2003. This submission involved smaller area of land to the current proposal.

TCP/10944/B – P/01892/04 – An application in respect of land to the west of the current application site involving the demolition of the existing house within the site and outline for 9 detached dwellings and alterations to vehicular access was submitted to the authority in September 2004. The submitted plans showed the formation of an additional access to Bannock Road, which was considered to be unacceptable and, following discussions with the applicant’s agent, the application was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant’s agent was advised that, unless agreement could be reached with the Highways Engineer with regard to the formation of a separate access, the site should be served off the same access road as the current proposal.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks full planning permission for two pairs of semi-detached houses and a terrace of three houses, seven dwellings in total, with parking and access off Bannock Road. The semi-detached houses would each provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen/diner and wc at ground floor level with three bedrooms, one with en-suite facilities, and bathroom at first floor level. The accommodation within the terraced houses would differ very slightly with lounge/diner, kitchen and wc at ground floor level with similar accommodation at first floor level to the semi-detached houses.

The submitted plans show designated parking bays and driveways capable of accommodating at least ten and potentially twelve cars. The access road is also shown to provide access to land adjacent to the site, and to rear of properties fronting the High Street, which is the subject of a separate application, originally seeking consent for four houses but now the subject of revised proposals for three dwellings. In addition, the proposed access road runs parallel with and immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the site, providing possible alternative means of access to the neighbouring site, which has some potential for further development.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the development envelope for Whitwell, as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 – Standards of Design

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

H5 – Infill Development

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

H14 – Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer initially recommended refusal on grounds of inadequate visibility at the junction of the access road with Bannock Road and inadequate turning facilities within the site. He indicated that if the applicant can demonstrate that approach speeds are sufficiently below 30 mph, then the available visibility may be acceptable. Further discussions in respect of this issue have been taking place between the applicant's agent and the Highway Engineer and investigations into traffic speeds in this section of Bannock Road scheduled to take place. It is anticipated that the outcome of these discussions and investigations will be available at the Committee Meeting.

Southern Water indicate that their sewer incident records in this area indicate that there are no incidents of flooding from the public sewers. I am advise that there have been some blockages but non of them is recorded as causing flooding. In addition, some private drainage incidents are recorded but the records held by Southern Water do not indicate that this has resulted in flooding. In regard to these factors, Southern Water would not object to a modest number of dwellings being constructed on the site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommended refusal of the application on the following grounds:

· Overdevelopment of the site.

· The access is not appropriate for the number of vehicles.

· Off street parking for in-fill housing is inadequate as identified in the Parish Plan.

· The sewers are not adequate for such a development.

The Parish Council requested that a site inspection is carried out. In addition, they indicated that they received eight letters of objection to the proposal and a large number of objectors attended the public session of their meeting.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted fourteen letters from local residents, together with a number of copies of letters sent directly to the Head of Engineering services, objecting to the proposal on grounds, which can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment – density not in keeping with area.

Cumulative effect of proposal with other recent development will change character of this rural village.

Increased noise and activity in area, including children playing.

Traffic generation exacerbating parking/traffic problems in area – Bannock Road is a bus route.

Access to site close to bend in road compromising road safety.

Proposal makes inadequate provision for parking of vehicles.

Overlooking/loss of privacy.

Loss of trees.

Inadequate amenity space – lack of facilities in Whitwell resulting in children playing in road causing hazard.

Drainage and services in area are inadequate for further development.

Loss of habitat for wildlife.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Having regard to location of site, within the development boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, and the planning history of this site, involving the grant of outline planning permission for three dwellings in May 2003, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether proposal represents an acceptable density of development and whether proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the area and neighbouring residential occupiers.

The site is located on the edge of Whitwell and modern residential estate in an area characterised by a mix of dwelling types and designs. Most recent development in the immediate vicinity involves development comprising a pair of semi detached houses and one detached house fronting Bannock Road constructed pursuant to planning permission granted in July 2002. The density of this development is similar to that now proposed and equates to approximately forty-three dwellings to the hectare, complying with the guidance contained in PPG3 which recommends minimum densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings to the hectare. The submitted plan shows reasonable level of amenity for each dwelling and allocated parking spaces for at least ten vehicles, possibly a maximum of twelve. I am satisfied that the layout of the proposed development is compatible with most recent and general pattern of development within the locality and that the site is of adequate size to accommodate seven dwellings in an acceptable form. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal represents over development of the site. Furthermore I am satisfied that adequate separation would exist between the proposed and existing dwellings and that proposal would not have excessive or unacceptable impact on amenities of neighbouring properties.

The proposal is not dissimilar in terms of the design approach from recent development which has taken place in the area and, having regard to the variety of dwelling types and styles within the immediate locality, I do not consider that the proposal would detract from the amenities of the area in general.

Whilst previous applications sought outline consent for only three dwellings, development of this site would provide opportunity for development of adjoining sites and at time of dealing with the previous submission, consideration was given to the standard of access required to serve not only the proposed development but also potential future development in this area. The proposed access road would have a width of approximately 4.8 metres along its length which, in accordance with the advice contained within Design Bulletin 32 and the Companion Guide - Places, Streets and Movements, would be adequate to serve up to 50 dwellings subject to adequate visibility being achieved at its junction with Bannock Road. The previous application was the subject of consultations with the Highway Engineer who has raised no objection to the proposal in respect of the access arrangements. Due to the nature of the road from which the site is to be accessed and anticipated traffic speeds, it is understood that a reduced visibility splay may be acceptable.

Policy H14 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan requires an element of affordable housing to be provided on developments which exceed relevant thresholds. In the case of the current proposal, the site is located in a settlement with a population of less than 3,000 where the threshold at which affordable housing would be required is ten or more units. Whilst the current submission seeks consent for seven dwellings, the cumulative number of units likely to be served off the access road would probably be equal to or exceed ten units. Therefore, the current proposal should not be seen in isolation and I consider it would be appropriate to apply a requirement for affordable housing on a pro rata basis for the current application and subsequent applications served off this access road. In this respect, the Council's Housing Development and Initiatives Officer advises that they do not have a separate rural needs assessment for Whitwell although, the housing register indicates that there is a need within the nearest town of Niton. Notwithstanding this information, it is necessary to have regard for the practicality of providing affordable housing on the application site.

The market value of the proposed houses has been estimated at approximately £195,000 and I am advised by the Housing Development and Initiatives Officer that it is unlikely that any housing association would be able to fund the purchase of a property on this development at the 50% open market value. Therefore, he considers that, in this instance, it would be appropriate to require the developer to make a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing, although this may not directly benefit the settlement of Whitwell. Following discussions between the Housing Development and Initiatives Officer and the applicant, a number of options have been suggested for the level of contribution to be made, ranging from £30,000 to £45,000 and the method by which this sum should be payable, including contribution on commencement, contribution on completion of the development and a phased payment requiring sums to be paid on completion of a specified number of units.

In determining the appropriate level of payment and method by which this is to be made I consider that it is necessary to have regard for a number of factors, including the planning history of the site. In this respect, the applicant’s agent draws attention to the fact that the site has benefit of outline permission for three detached houses only which could be activated by a reserved matters application. However, he indicates that it is his client’s desire, along with government policy to maximise the use of site thereby making those houses to be built "more affordable" than the current permission. He advises that the site adjacent the current proposal, revised plans for which show three dwellings, are to be built as part of a self build project. In addition, he indicates that there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether the larger site, to the west of his client's property will come forward for development due to unresolved negotiations over a ransom strip. In the event that the neighbouring development did proceed with access over a roadway forming part of the current proposal, it would again be appropriate to apply a requirement for affordable housing on a pro rata basis. Given the circumstances surrounding this case, I consider that the development of this site with seven houses and the adjoining site with three dwellings, totalling ten dwellings, should be subject of a contribution of £45,000 paid in stages, requiring payment of £18,000 on completion of four houses, a sum of £13,500 after seven houses have been completed and a final sum of £13,500 when all ten have been completed. Therefore, should members be minded to approve the application, I consider that the consent should be subject to a condition requiring the developer to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in respect of these contributions prior to any work commencing on site.

Following consultations with Southern Water, I am satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that there is inadequate capacity within the drainage system to received flows from the proposed development. However, in order to restrict flows to the combined system, it would be advisable for surface water to be disposed of in some other manner. This would include discharge to the highway storm water drainage system.

With regard to concerns that proposal would result in loss of habitat for wildlife, it should be noted that this area was previously maintained as part of a domestic curtilage and is not, therefore, considered to be an important habitat for wildlife. The loss of trees within the site is not considered to be significant and, in the main, relates to fruit and ornamental trees of little or no amenity value. Members are advised that the majority of the site has been cleared in preparation for development. However, the hedgerows to the boundary of the site are still in place and, should Members be minded to approve the application, it could be a requirement of the planning permission that these are retained and, where necessary, reinforced with additional planting.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that density of the proposed development is acceptable in this location and that development of this site as proposed would not detract from the amenities of the area in general or neighbouring residential properties. I am satisfied that proposal incorporates acceptable level of parking and amenity space for future occupants. In addition, I am satisfied proposal safeguards potential for development of adjacent sites and that, subject to acceptable visibility at its junction with Bannock Road, the access road is of adequate width to cater for additional traffic.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The development hereby permitted shall not be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) (a) - (d) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development until a planning obligation pursuant to the Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Planning Authority and that the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authority's approval. The said planning obligation will provide for the payment of £45,000 to be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution to the provision of affordable housing.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision of locally affordable housing and to comply with Policy H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an element of housing schemes) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until samples of 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.

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. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings 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	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01

6	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

The existing hedgerows along the northern and part of the eastern and western boundaries of the site shall be retained and maintained at a minimum height of 1.8 metres and, where necessary, reinforced with further planting comprising appropriate species to the existing hedgerows, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

8	Hedgerow Protection - M50

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/15752/X P/01077/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland

Registration Date: 24/06/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Applicant: Island View Holidays

48 holiday chalets; building to provide reception/office facilities with wardens flat over; outdoor swimming pool & tennis courts

Island View Chalets, Fort Warden Road, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390DA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Local Member (Councillor J Howe), as he is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure due to previous involvement with the site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the 15 March meeting will have taken thirty-eight weeks to process, the delay being due to the need to defer determination pending the result of an appeal on this site germane to the scheme under consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site of approximately 1 hectare roughly square with overall dimensions of 10 metres by approximately 110 metres with a similar frontage length to Fort Warden Road situated about 120 metres north east of Colwell Common Road.

Site is presently occupied by fifty timber and block flat roofed chalets, some of which are semi detached, presently served by a gravel track with two accesses off Fort Warden Road into the site.

The site slopes steadily up to the west and beyond the north west boundary is a holiday complex known as Beach Side Bungalows, whereas to the south east are the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Colwell Common Road and further residential property accessed from Colwell Chine Road.

Existing site contains a substantial number of trees including those on the north western boundary, groups within the site and individual specimen trees currently located amongst the chalets.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Two applications submitted seeking outline planning permission in June 1997 and March 2003 respectively. Both applications refused on grounds of development outside development envelope therefore contrary to policies of the then structure plan and more latterly, The Unitary Development Plan. Access was also considered unsatisfactory in terms of inadequate width and construction.

More recently an application seeking consent for the demolition of two chalets and their replacement with a modern semi detached pair of two holiday bungalows was approved in April 2004. The approval was granted subject to three conditions (amongst others) limiting the use of the accommodation to holiday use only; limiting the period of occupancy to a maximum of six weeks per calendar year for any individual and preventing the individual units being sold off separately, sub let or otherwise disposed of from the main holiday complex.

The subsequent appeal determined by letter dated 12 January 2005, deleted the conditions which limited the occupancy of the holiday bungalows to a maximum period of six weeks and the condition which required the retention of the holiday bungalows as one property and the main holiday complex.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This full application seeks consent for the redevelopment of the site with forty eight semi detached holiday bungalows arranged in a similar overall pattern to those which they replace, utilising the existing access points and route but arranged in four, regular lines with a fifth running along and approximately parallel to the north and east boundary. The plans show each chalet to have a car parking space most of which are located in the front or closely associated with the chalet with some additional parking located towards the easternmost corner of the site and further parking associated with a new reception and facilities building and swimming pool complex located in the western most corner of the site, close to the north west boundary. Further to the north east, again located close to the north western boundary is a new tennis court. Plans show the holiday bungalows to be constructed in pairs, of brick work under a concrete tiled roof overall dimensions of 12.1 by 9.4 metres each comprising living/dining room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms.

The reception facilities building located in the western corner of the site, fronting onto Fort Warden Road is a two storey building with accommodation within the roof space. Constructed in facing brick work under a concrete tiled roof the ground floor plan shows a small gymnasium, toilets and changing rooms, a reception/office, a sauna and solarium with stairs from the office leading to first floor accommodation comprising a bedroom, reception room, shower and kitchen, a cloakroom and store to provide accommodation for manager. The building has dimensions of 16 metres by 7.5 metres but with small projections on its south west and north east side to accommodate the gymnasium, and at the rear, a plant room for the swimming pool. At the rear of the building a new swimming pool is proposed with overall dimensions of 12 metres by 6 metres incorporating a small paddling pool surrounded by a sun terrace and screened from the holiday bungalows by a screen wall of unspecified height. The pool is shown to have a depth of only 1.5 metres. Just to the east of the swimming pool between the new holiday bungalows and the reception/swimming pool area lies a small car park of eight spaces, two of which are for disabled.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The majority of the site is contained within a designated site of permanent holiday accommodation situated outside but adjoining the designated development envelope. The tract of land presently proposed for the reception building, car parking area and tennis court is not shown within the designated holiday site. Policy T6 of the Unitary Development Plan relating to permanent accommodation sites states that planning applications for the expansions for existing permanent accommodation sites will be approved where they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities; they do not detract from their surroundings; they enhance the environment or improve the visual appearance of the site and that new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area.

Other policies in the Unitary Development Plan relevant to this case include:-

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

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

G4 - General locational criteria for development

G5 - Development outside defined settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for development within the site

T1 - The promotion of tourism and the extension of the season

T3 - Criteria for development of holiday accommodation

C1 - Protection of landscape character

TR7 - Highways considerations for new development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers point out that beyond Colwell Common Road, Fort Warden Road is unadopted and in poor condition and recommend that the road be improved as part of the proposals and suggest a condition accordingly.

PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council have no comment other than to request the imposition of a ten month residency restriction if the chalets are to be sold on leasehold.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE object on basis of creation of second homes, preferring residential development. If holiday accommodation is proposed then the development should be rethought.

One letter objection on grounds of inaccurate application: that the development is no more than open market holiday homes or cheaper dwellings which are likely to be occupied as permanent accommodation; objects to the swimming pool and leisure complex on grounds of noise; increased use by the public of leisure complex and pool and precedent for further developments.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not, however, anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications attached to this proposal.

EVALUATION

In April 2004 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the two chalets and for their replacement with a pair of semi-detached holiday bungalows as described in the history section above. This permission related to chalets number 33 and 34 on the current plan, those chalets being located in the south western corner of the site closest to the proposed office reception and swimming pool with access directly off Fort Warden Road where two car parking spaces were shown. The design of the semi-detached holiday bungalows was identical to that of the proposals in this current application and, in deed the plans submitted at that time are identical not only in design but also layout. At the previous application stage it was known that, in the event that the application was successful, the remainder of the development would be the subject of a further application, this scheme presently under consideration.

Policy T6 of the UDP supports the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites so long as they adjoin or are directly related to existing built facilities and do not detract from their surroundings. In addition such developments should enhance the environment or improve the visual appearance of the site and the design of any new or replacement units should be appropriate and the resulting density of the site doesn’t adversely affect the rural character of the area. In this instance the site formerly accommodated 50 chalets and this application seeks to replace those with 48, albeit slightly larger chalets but in semi-detached form whereas the majority of the chalets on site were detached. The cumulative floor area of chalets will be significantly increased probably by approximately 50% from about 1800 sq metres to 2500 sq metres and the layout is more regimented. In addition, bearing in mind the nature of the existing chalets, the overall height of the buildings will be increased since the holiday bungalows will be pitched roofed. Furthermore, the open area of the site will be partially developed with a reception are, swimming pool and a tennis court. Despite this increase in built resources, I do not consider the visual impact of the development will detract from its surroundings and that, bearing in mind the design of the units have already been agreed in the previous application, I do not consider the development will adversely affect the rural character of the area.

The most contentious part of this proposal is the basis upon which the proposed units will be used. In the last application, approved in April 2004 and which was subject to a subsequent appeal, the two conditions relating to the limitation of occupation to a period of six weeks by any occupants and the condition requiring the individual units to be retained with the holiday complex as a single ownership were both removed by the Inspector. The conditions which were in dispute stated:

“The occupation of the chalets shall be limited to holiday use only and shall not be occupied by an person, a family or group of persons for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority and

The individual units hereby approved as holiday chalets shall not be sold off separately, sub let or otherwise disposed off from the main holiday complex.”

In his conclusions the Inspector deleted both conditions and made the following comments:

· The permission is subject to a condition restricting the occupancy of the bungalows to holiday use only.

· This condition will insure permanent residential use would not be established.

· The Council’s concern about the use of the bungalows as second homes is not supported by UDP Policies T1 or T3 or there reasoned justification.

· Neither Policy T1 nor Policy T3 refer to a need to ensure only short term lets occur.

· There is no support for such a condition in Circular 11/95 or PPG21.

· The condition is unnecessary to prevent residential occupation.

With regard to the condition relating to sale or subletting of the units, the Inspector concluded the following:

· Paragraph 20 of Circular 11/95 indicates that conditions affecting land ownership would be ultra vires.

· The condition seeking to prevent the sale of subletting of the units separate from the adjoining chalets is therefore ultra vires.

· Removal of this condition will have no significant impact on leisure facilities or amenities of the area.

· Its imposition is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. The Inspector concluded that the recommended condition limiting the occupation of the chalets to holiday purposes only was in line with PPG21 and Circular 11/95 and should be retained. That condition was not appealed.

The application for the development of the remainder of the site with replacement holiday bungalows was expected following approval of the former application for two units and, following the receipt of the Inspector’s report regarding the appeal against the two said conditions, I do not consider there to be an alternative other than to approve the development as submitted but subject only to the holiday occupancy condition. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the Inspector’s findings.

Finally, turning to the remaining part of the development, the construction of the reception and facilities building and its associated swimming pool and terrace, this is a development which is very much in keeping in design terms with the style of the chalets. It is comparatively small scale and restrictive in terms of the amount of accommodation it affords and is unlikely to be of sufficient capacity to enable its availability to the general public. The building does include living accommodation within the roof space, stated as being provision for a warden. It comprises a living room, shower room, toilet, one bedroom and a store which conceivably could be used as an additional bedroom but otherwise is comparatively limited. I do not consider this provision to be inappropriate so long as the occupation is restricted to that of a warden or employee or manager employed at the holiday complex.

The installation of the swimming pool is also not to be particularly contentious. It is little more than a splash pool since its maximum depth is only 1.5 metres and it is situated within the site as far from residential property as possible. Similarly, it is considered that the installation of a tennis court is unlikely to have any material impact on adjoining properties and little visual impact. Subject to conditions, I consider that the development to be acceptable recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The redevelopment of the site for holiday purposes is considered to be consistent with Policy T6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development in as much that it upgrades and improves the standard of accommodation without significant visual or other impact on the area. Although the cumulative site coverage of the buildings is greater than the holiday chalets they replace the upgrading will give significantly better accommodation. The improvement of facilities has also considered an appropriate development in terms of policy and the occupancy conditions to be imposed on the permission are in line with the advice in Circular 11/95 and PPG21 regarding holiday occupation.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

With the exception of the wardens accommodation none of the accommodation hereby approved shall be used other than as holiday accommodation.

Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The warden's accommodation, situated on the first floor of the reception building shall be occupied only by a warden, manager or employee of the holiday complex, presently known as Island View and any resident dependants.

Reason: The site in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted except where there is an overriding need in the interests of the holiday complex and to comply with Policy H9 of the IOW Unitary Development plan.

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finishes, including mortar colours 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.

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. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings 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.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artifacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines, etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc).

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Other than those trees specifically marked on the approved plan for removal or where such trees coincide with the position of the buildings hereby approved, no trees on the site shall be felled, lopped, uprooted or otherwise destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01

9	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

10	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03

11	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01

No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site, drained and surfaced in accordance with drawing number 2308/04 Revision A. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than for the parking of vehicles .

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall commence until details of finished floor levels, retaining structures, banks, land molding and contours have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14	Landscape management plan - M60

TCP/16761/C P/02170/04 Parish/Name: Chale Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date: 14/10/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823856

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M O'Keefe

Conversion of redundant barn to unit of holiday accommodation with decked raised terrace and balustrade on south west elevation; alterations to vehicular access

Gladices Barn, Gladices Lane, Chale Green, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This application is being reported to the Development Control Committee on the basis of the previous history of the site and because the current application is particularly contentious having attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which will have taken 23 weeks to the date of the Committee. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to the contentious nature of the application, negotiations and submission of additional details and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a substantial building located on the western side of Chale Lane just to the south of Gladices Lane. The building is situated on ground which falls away from Chale Lane and the building is not readily visible from the local highway network due to the presence of a good hedge screen and the topography in the area. The building is more prominent however in distant views from the south and west and from the public footpath.

There is an existing vehicular access to Chale Lane which serves the agricultural holding.

The building is of relatively modern construction although it has been built using traditional stone and brick finishes with a tiled pitched roof. There are a number of large window and door openings as the building was constructed as a barn to serve the deer farm.

Access is from Chale Lane via an unmade track and there is some hard surfacing in the vicinity of the building which is currently used for parking of agricultural machinery.

A public footpath runs from Chale Lane to the north of the building and there is a separate access to the north-west onto Gladices Lane.

The barn has been constructed on land forming part of the deer farm and an enclosed paddock is situated immediately to the west of the building and there are further buildings and dwellings to the west beyond this paddock which are also accessed from Gladices Lane.

The area is generally rural in character with scattered development and open views, particularly to the west. The access lanes are relatively narrow and are partly enclosed by hedges although these are sparse in character.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Construction of this building commenced in 1988 and concerns were expressed regarding the size and appearance of the building and its location in the rural area. Information submitted by the applicants indicated that the building was being erected for agricultural purposes and was necessary to support the deer farming enterprise at the holding. This matter was reported to the Planning Committee of the former South Wight Borough Council in 1989 and again in 1990 and concern was expressed that the design and construction of the building resembled that of a dwelling rather than an agricultural barn and that its construction was not justified for agricultural use. However, following submission of information from the owners, a legal opinion was sought from Counsel and it was deemed that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the building had been constructed as an agricultural building under permitted development rights pertaining at that time. Therefore there was no action which the Council could take in this respect. This outcome was reported to the Planning Committee in November 1994.

Since that date the building has been roofed in and the applicants indicate that it has been used for storage of farm implements, feed stuff etc. Members are advised that the exterior of the building has not been completed but is essentially weatherproof and sufficient for agricultural storage.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application now under consideration is for conversion of this agricultural building to comprise self catering holiday accommodation. The submitted details indicate the provision of seven bedroom accommodation with a separate lounge, TV room, dining room, kitchen and utility areas. The accommodation would be contained within the shell of the existing building which would require little external alteration, although some new door and window openings are proposed.

The ground levels to the south of the building are significantly lower than the internal floor level and the plans which accompanied the original submission indicated a raised timber deck with balustrading. Following negotiations, this element has been reduced and redesigned to form a solid platform to give access from the interior accommodation but to reduce the overall visual impact of this structure. The submitted details also indicate improvements to the vehicular access, landscaping within the site and provision of hard surfacing for vehicle parking.

A Structural Engineers report has been submitted which indicates that the building is of substantial construction and in good condition capable of conversion to provide holiday accommodation.

The applicants have submitted a letter to accompany the application which indicates that when the land was purchased in 1980 there was no building on the land and the stone barn was commenced using traditional materials both on aesthetic and functional grounds. The following information and comments have been submitted in support of the proposal:

· The barn was needed for the deer enterprise and also to house implements and store hay and straw. After nearly 20 years the deer enterprise was brought to an end by the imposition of a public right of way through the handling area. The consequent reduction in size of the herd rendered the business no longer profitable. In addition, the applicants have stated that frequent acts of damage to animals and property have occurred as the area cannot easily be surveyed by the owners. The discontinued use of the barn as an agricultural building would not in any way disadvantage the continued use of the surrounding land for agriculture. The barn only served and sustained the deer enterprise. The size of the entrance is too small in width for modern farming purposes and it cannot be reached or entered by the large trailers used in the transportation of grain on account of its size and its topography of the surrounding land.

· An alternative use for the building is therefore sought and the provision of holiday accommodation appears to be the most viable option. The applicants intend to apply to DEFRA for a grant towards the conversion. The planned conversion would provide accommodation to a high standard in accordance with advice given by Isle of Wight Tourism and would make use of the traditional features of the structure and would harmonise with nearby buildings.

· The applicants indicate that traffic movements would improve compared with the existing situation where large tractors, trailed machinery and implements gain access to the site. The lighter and more sporadic traffic serving the holiday accommodation could therefore easily be accommodated. Parking and disabled facilities are also planned.

· As a result of comments received and further discussions regarding the application, the applicant has submitted further information to clarify the situation. This indicates that for the best part of the last fifteen years the use of the barn has been for wintering of calves plus the storage of foodstuff and hay and straw. In spring it was used for storage and chitting of seed potatoes and in summer for the storage of organic potatoes. The traditional construction was successful for these purposes. Small agricultural equipment was also stored in the barn. The nature of agriculture is changing and the production of certain food does not remain constantly profitable. This was equally true of venison and potatoes where the cost of production did not match the market price especially on the island. The establishment of the right of way has also been detrimental to the business. It is necessary therefore to diversify in order to return the business to profit.

The application details also include a letter from the NFU outlining the history of deer farming on the holding. This indicates that the holding has become uneconomic due to a number of factors and is currently running at a loss. A small deer herd is maintained but the business needs to be supported with a more viable, sustainable source of income. Conversion of the building for agricultural storage would not be a viable proposition and would also involve an increase in the use of Chale Lane by large agricultural machinery. The conversion of traditional barns into holiday accommodation, offices or similar forms of accommodation has proven a popular way to preserve such structures and is also supported by grant aid from organisations such as SEEDA and DEFRA.

PPG21 refers to re-use of rural buildings for tourist accommodation and the use of appropriate conditions.

The submitted details also indicate that a new drainage system would be installed with foul water drainage discharged through a new septic tank or sewage treatment plant subject to the necessary building regulation and Environment Agency approvals.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National guidance is contained in Planning Policy Statement 7 and paragraphs 18 to 20 refer to re-use of buildings. In principle, the re-use of rural buildings for suitable purposes is encouraged providing the use is acceptable for a particular location especially where the building was originally erected under Permitted Development rights.

The Council has published supplementary design guidance relating to conversion of rural buildings which contains advice relevant to this application.

The site is located outside of any development boundary defined on the Unitary Development Plan, within a landscape designate as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Policy are considered to be as follows:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

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

S10 - Designated and defined areas

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages

G4 - General locational criteria for development

G5 - Development outside of defined settlements

D1 - Standards of design

C1 - Protection of landscape character

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C15 - Appropriate agricultural diversification

C17 - Conversion of barns and other rural outbuildings

TR7 - Highway considerations for new development

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineer has indicated that visibility to the south from the vehicular access is extremely poor and as the proposed holiday unit could accommodate up to sixteen people it is likely that the access will have a greater level of usage than it has done in the past. As such it is reasonable to ask for improvements to the visibility. As Chale Lane is lightly trafficked and approaching vehicle speeds are only in the region of forty miles per hour it would be unreasonable to ask for a full visibility splay. There is also an established hedgerow. A visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 30 metres to the south would help considerably and a condition is therefore suggested in this respect. Revised details have been forwarded to the Highway Engineer and any further comments will be reported at the meeting.

The Countryside Manager comments that the hedgerow on the roadside boundary is well established and sits atop a large bank. It consists of Hawthorne and a great deal of apparently healthy Elm which is in itself of note. The hedgerow is very exposed and the constant exposure to the wind has made the trees stunted and growth quite thin in a manner typical of such locations. Despite this the hedge is in good health and without gaps. It sits on the very apex of the ridge looking west over Atherfield and the West Wight and east towards St Catherine's Down, and forms a part of the skyline view for those looking from both sides. It is of exceptionally high landscape importance because of this locally distinct growth habit and its location. It is situated in the heart of the AONB in an unusually undisturbed and tranquil location. The length of hedgerow proposed for removal in connection with visibility improvements, is small by standards of many such applications. However despite this the location and the importance of the hedge itself lead him to conclude that removal of this amount of hedgerow is sufficient reason for refusal of the proposal. Concerns are also expressed at increased traffic disturbing the tranquility of this unusually quiet area of the landscape, but this in itself is not sufficient reason for refusal. It is suggested that an alternative access formed to Gladices Lane would be preferable thus avoiding the top hedgerow entirely.

The Council's Rights of Way Officer has also commented on the application and has indicated that there would be no objection to the proposal as far as the effect on the footpath is concerned other than to request a separate pedestrian entrance adjacent to the vehicular gate on the south side so that walkers would not have to cross the path of vehicles entering and exiting. Gladices Lane itself is a byway open to all traffic and is part of the Rights of Way network as well as being maintained as an unclassified road to access properties. Concern is expressed about the removal of hedgerow in the area because of the rural character of the lanes. A possible alternative would be to use the existing entrance to the field from Gladices Lane itself but it is recognised that it could be more awkward and the increase in the use of Gladices Lane itself could also require an improved visibility splay.

The Council's Planning Policy Team Leader has made the following comments in respect of this application:

Recent planning appeals have suggested that some conditions which the local authority wish to apply were not well founded in terms of circular advice and that enforcing them could be intrusive or that there was a lack of evidence to support the reasons for their application. This must therefore call into question whether the exemption to general policies against the provision of accommodation in the countryside for tourism purposes can any longer be allowed if reliance on a single condition of the principle that the accommodation shall only be used as holiday accommodation is insufficient to maximise the delivery of the wider benefits to the tourist and rural economy. There is evidence from elsewhere that holiday accommodation generates three times greater benefits for the local economy than second homes. Further survey work on the island would provide local rather than generic evidence.

The application details indicate that the intention is for self-catering units for multiple occupancy or a single let unit for up to twenty visitors providing high quality short term holiday accommodation. The accommodation would not be subdivided for separate units for resale and the letting income would replace lost income from the failed deer farming operation. It would be difficult to achieve these aims by the imposition of planning conditions as noted above and it would therefore be expected that these matters would be covered by a legal agreement in order to secure the proposed use and rural benefit.

Comment has been received from the Head of Tourism indicating that the property is hidden from the road but has a good view out from the rear across a small wood and open field to the sea. A small herd of domesticated deer in the field adjacent will have its own attraction. The applicant has a good understanding of the market place and would provide some additional services which might be needed such as external catering. Tourism South East have identified an increasing demand for larger units to house two families sharing or a larger group. There is healthy demand for high quality accommodation towards the four and five star end of the market and if the property is developed to this standard it would be the only one of this size on the island and in view of the research on future demand this would be a very viable business. Similar properties in the West Country can command over £2,000 a week during the peak season and the return on investment should be reasonably quick in view of the fact that the shell of the building already exists and the expenditure would primarily for the fitting out. The development is therefore supported.

The AONB Officer indicates that it is his understanding that the building was constructed during the 1980's as permitted development for agricultural use and that the location had no historic development and was not part of an existing farm building complex. The building is highly visible from the surrounding AONB to the south and south west due to its construction on a hill side rising from the coastal plain. The building can be seen from the Military Road and from Atherfield. Closer views to the building and its curtilage are afforded by public footpaths and there is partial visibility from Gladices Lane. It would seem that the building has never been completed with internal block walls visible towards the roof line. Some badly corroded farming equipment was seen due to its open air storage in the grounds around the building. It is believed that the original submission was incomplete as it provided insufficient information on the extent of the agricultural holding within the ownership of the applicant. No detailed information has been provided on the impact of the proposed development on the viability of continued agriculture use of the holding in the form of a "Whole Farm Plan". In the light of the design of the building its current unfinished state and its short term alleged use for agriculture it is questioned whether there is scope to revisit the issue of the structure currently benefiting from agricultural permitted development rights.

The AONB Officer considers that the visual impact of the building within the AONB is important as this is situated in a prominent position. The design of the building and the alterations are of great concern. This part of the AONB currently benefits from being classed as having "dark skies" due to low light pollution. This resource is a recognized asset of landscape character of the AONB which possesses the predominant part of the remaining 5% of the South East England resource. The AONB Management Plan cites the protection of this as a key management aim. The use of the building for tourism purposes will result in light from windows in the south east aspect being visible in long distant views.

The AONB Officer considered the proposal to include balustrading and decking to be an inappropriate urbanizing impact which should not be included in proposals for barn conversions. In addition, he noted that the proposal to provide a visibility splay will require the removal of a mature hedgerow and change the present rural character of this part of Chale Lane, to which he objects.

The AONB Officer considers that there would appear to be some confusion about the applicant’s supporting letter indicating that the buildings are redundant and no longer required for agricultural activities. They also state that the deer are to be retained albeit at a reduced level and it is not clear how their husbandry will be serviced. If lower levels of deer are able to be maintained without the use of the building we would ask whether the stocking level triggered the need for the construction of the building. It is questioned whether it is intended to subdivide the property from the farm holding. The large curtilage being proposed for the barn conversion would impact on the landscape and the provision of car parking on this plot would change the visual character of the area.

Concern is also raised about the conversion of the building to one unit and the viability of this in the tourism market. Concern is also raised about potential for future change to residential use on the basis of the lack of a market for a single large tourism unit.

On the basis of the above, it is believed that the application cannot be viewed as a straightforward farm diversification and strong objection is raised as it is believed to be detrimental to the conservation and enhancement of the AONB. Further information should be provided in respect of the farm diversification.'

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Chale Parish Council object to the application for the following reasons:

The proposed changes would be an unwarranted intrusion into the AONB contrary to C2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposals could result in loss of privacy to near neighbours.

Increased tourism use could cause access and congestion problems.

The Council is concerned that drainage provision may not have been sufficiently addressed.

In addition the Council have requested that the application is dealt with by the Development Control Committee within the spirit of the Parish Protocol.

Additional comments were subsequently received from the Parish Council for consideration as follows:

To grant change of use to residential holiday accommodation would set an unusual precedent as the property was originally built without permission for agricultural purposes. If granted this development would contradict original planning conditions.

At Public Question Time a neighbour expressed serious concerns regarding the density of sewage generated by a seven bedroom tourist unit.

It was alleged that the applicants do not live a the address quoted on the application forms.

Concerns have been raised by members of the public regarding the geological stability of the land.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

A letter has been received from the Council for The Protection of Rural England objecting on the basis that the site is located within the AONB and Unitary Development Plan Policy C2 is applicable which indicates that there should be no permanent changes to the landscape or development that appears to be of a permanent nature. In addition, SINC C274 is immediately adjacent to the site and Unitary Development Plan Policy C11 would require attention and management of important wildlife features and habitats. This is a development outside any defined settlement and could therefore be contrary to Policy G1. The development seems to be mainly a substantial new build isolated in the countryside and outside development boundaries and would therefore appear to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy H9.

The submitted details do not include a "Whole Farm Plan" and there is no indication of the relevance of the development to the farm operation. It is believed that the proposal is merely an attempt to build a large new independent residence in the countryside. Notwithstanding the previous comments, it would be essential to impose the usual tourist occupancy limits on any approved developments.

The local lanes are small, quiet and very rural and are inadequate to cope with additional traffic. The lack of adequate access would contravene Policy TR7. It is understood that when consent was given for the barn some years ago there was a condition applied that it should only be used as a barn. We believe that there is no substantive reason why this condition should be changed. If it is redundant its condition would indicate that demolition would be the more appropriate option. Many barns have been converted to residences and a new replacement barn required. This would be completely inappropriate in this very isolated and environmentally sensitive area of the AONB.

A letter has been received from Island Watch objecting to the application as the building gives the distinct impression of having been designed as a house from the start where no new house would have been permitted. Conversion to holiday accommodation would surely be a prelude to residential status. If the barn is redundant it should be demolished and the countryside restored to its former state.

Twenty-six letters of objection have been received in respect of this application as well as copies of letters and other correspondence forwarded from members. The matters raised are summarised below:

The barns were originally erected as permitted development for agricultural use but it appears more as a large dwelling in terms of design and use of materials. The building has not been used for agricultural purposes and this proposal would circumvent the planning authority. A seven bedroom dwelling would not have been originally approved in this location.

There was a previous refusal for a dwelling on this site in 1979.

Proposal would intrude into the AONB.

There is inadequate drainage.

Increased use resulting from seven bedroom accommodation could cause traffic congestion in the narrow lanes which have tight bends and are also used by walkers and horse riders.

A recent application for a fence for a neighbouring property was refused because of the impact on the AONB.

The design and appearance of the building including large windows, external decking and parking areas does not reflect the local vernacular and is considered inappropriate.

The need for an agricultural building in conjunction with the ongoing deer farm is questioned.

The size of the unit is questioned with the provision of seven bedrooms possibly accommodating up to sixteen people which would be unsuitable for a unit of holiday accommodation.

The removal of hedges together with the provision of car parking adjacent to the footpath would be inappropriate.

Noise, light pollution and smells from the sewerage system would be intrusive.

The building is visible from the heritage coast and an inspection should be made.

The land is very wet and there has been ground movement in the vicinity.

The alterations and change of use of the building would result in loss of privacy and intrusion into the amenities of nearby residential properties.

The proposal would create a precedent for similar structures to be constructed for conversion in the future.

The building is still not complete and if now redundant it should be removed completely and if not suitable for agricultural use the original design should be questioned.

Lighting would impact on the level of illumination in the area which is important for its dark skies.

The balcony increases the impact of the building and would be used as an outside room.

There would be no obvious benefit to the local economy from the conversion.

Increased noise would be intrusive in an area which is valuable for its conservation and wild life importance.

There is potential for future use of the building as a permanent dwelling.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The determining factor in respect of this application is considered to be whether the proposed alterations and change of use would comply with relevant government guidelines and local plan policies and whether the proposals would adversely impact on the character and appearance of the rural area which is a designated AONB.

This application relates to a relatively modern structure situated in an isolated rural location within the designated area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and outside any designated development envelope. The building was originally erected for agricultural purposes and following legal determination was deemed to be permitted development not requiring planning approval.

The building has been constructed using traditional forms and materials but differs in detail from traditional barns in terms of the size and number of openings, the overall height of the buildings and relatively shallow pitch of the roof. It was however originally constructed as an agricultural building and has been used in conjunction with the deer farm.

Information submitted with the application clearly indicates that whilst the building was originally required for agricultural purposes, changes in agricultural practice and in this individual business have resulted in the building becoming redundant for this purpose. Members will also be aware that government advice contained in PPS7 indicates that it is not normally necessary to consider if the building is no longer needed for the present purposes when considering applications for change of use.

Policy C17 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to the re-use of rural buildings and indicates that proposals for business, community or tourism purposes would normally be acceptable provided buildings are capable of conversion without substantial alteration or reconstruction and any proposed conversion respects the local character, building styles and materials and that the form, bulk and general design for the building are in keeping with its surroundings. This policy also indicates that any traffic generated should be safely accommodated by the site access and the local road system and that no significant external changes to the curtilage would be required which would significantly harm the amenity of the area. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised regarding the history of the development on this site and the construction of this building, it is considered that the proposal now under consideration essentially complies with the criteria in Policy C17.

In addition, Policy C15 refers to appropriate agricultural diversification and indicates that appropriate diversification may be acceptable and should be evidenced by the provision of a whole farm plan to show that the proposed enterprise will be well integrated with the existing operation and would not cause unacceptable severance or disruption of the farm unit or be likely to threaten the viability of the holding. The applicant has submitted supporting information in this respect as well as a letter from the NFU.

Policy T9 relates to small scale rural tourism development and indicates that development ancillary to an existing farming operation may be acceptable in principle if they involve the conversion of suitable farm or rural buildings that are directly related to existing heritage and landscape qualities of the area and do not detrimentally affect areas of acknowledged importance. In this case, whilst concerns have been raised about the design and appearance of the building and the proposed alterations, the building is relatively well screened in the immediate locality although it is seen from more distant views. The building is of traditional form, substantially constructed and uses traditional materials and finishes. This is an established feature in this locality and the proposed change of use would not significantly alter its character or appearance or increase its visual impact. In this context members are advised that revised details have been submitted omitting the timber decking originally proposed and showing landscaping and parking areas which would be well integrated into the rural character of the area and would not be visually intrusive. I do not therefore consider that the proposed conversion in itself would have any greater impact on the character or appearance of the area than the existing building. Should Members be minded to approve the application it is suggested that conditions would be applicable to ensure that no further alterations, extensions or other structures are erected which would increases the visual impact in this locality and that external lighting is strictly controlled.

Concerns have also been expressed regarding the suitability of the access and the local road network to accommodate the proposed use. The existing building is accessed directly from Chale Lane and the agricultural use of this building could have resulted in a significant number of traffic movements and use by large vehicles as suggested by the applicants. The submitted details indicated that there would be no overall increase in the size of the building although the change of use would result in a different type of vehicular use, possibly including more traffic movements but with smaller vehicles. The Highway Engineer has requested visibility improvements which would result in some loss of the roadside hedge. This would be kept to the minimum necessary bearing in mind the nature of the access roads and limited vehicle speeds as outlined by the Highway Engineer. Nevertheless members will be aware that the loss of any of this hedgerow would be of concern in this sensitive location and it may be appropriate in this case for the existing access to remain unaltered bearing in mind the existing use of the barn and the importance of the road side hedges to the character of the area. The possibility of a separate access via Gladices Lane has also been raised but this would also result in significant loss of the roadside hedge in Gladices Lane as well as requiring visibility improvements at the junction with Chale Lane. Overall it is not considered that there would be any benefit in this proposal providing the existing access to Chale Lane could be used with minimal alterations as shown in the revised details which provides a visible improvement to the south whilst retaining most of the hedges involving only trimming back the face of the hedge.

Comment has been made that the proposals would adversely impact on the local Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. This is located some distance from the existing building and discussions with the Council's Ecology Officer have indicated that no significant adverse impact would be expected as a result of a change of use of this building.

Members are also advised that revised details have been submitted which have minimised any alterations to the exterior of the building including the removal of the timber decking which would be replaced by a simple raised platform constructed of stone and brick which would be less visually intrusive and similar to traditional loading platforms associated with rural buildings. Additional landscaping details and revised car parking arrangements have also been shown which would minimise any change to the overall rural character of the setting of the building. The applicant has confirmed that any external lighting would be kept to a minimum and be discreetly designed and located.

Whilst I appreciate and sympathise with concerns expressed locally about the complex planning history of this property, I do not believe that the proposal now under consideration would conflict with national or local policies which generally encourage farm diversification and re-use of rural buildings in order to diversify the rural economy. The applicants have submitted clear evidence that the building has been used for agricultural purposes and that changes in the farm business have resulted in the building becoming redundant. Essentially therefore this case is similar to many other agricultural businesses where traditional barns are no longer required or suitable for their original purpose and a suitable re-use would therefore be acceptable in accordance with the terms of Unitary Development Policy C17.

The supporting evidence indicates that whilst the holding is not strictly a working farm, the income from the holiday unit would be used to support the existing business. Notwithstanding the comments of the Policy Team Leader, members will be aware that recent appeal decisions have clearly indicated that it is not considered acceptable to limit periods of occupancy of holiday accommodation.

It is considered important that should the application be approved that conditions would be appropriate to ensure that the building is retained for holiday use with the overall farm holding in order to provide additional income as required by the applicant. I consider it important that the building should not be sold off separately which would sever this from the overall holding contrary to the requirements of Policies C15 and C17. A legal agreement is also proposed to ensure that no additional buildings are constructed within the holding without the prior consent of the planning authority. This would protect the overall quality and characteristics of the designated AONB. I also suggest that conditions would be appropriate to control any landscaping and external lighting at the property and to ensure that the materials and details of the development are carried out to respect the character of the area.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to the recommendation 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. It is recognised that the planning decision may be an interference with the human rights of local residents but this has to be balanced against the responsibility of the local planning authority to consider appropriate development in accordance with current policies and guidelines. The decision is considered to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council's Unitary Development Plan.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, whilst I note and understand the concerns raised in the representations, and appreciate the somewhat unusual history of this building, I am of the opinion that and alterations as shown on the revised details submitted with the application would conform with the relevant national and local policies and do not consider that the concerns raised would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Subject to a legal agreement to ensure that no additional agricultural buildings are erected within the land shown to be within the applicant’s ownership on the approved plans. Also, subject to provision of a standard barn conversion letter.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The accommodation hereby approved shall be used solely for holiday accommodation and shall not be used as a main or permanent residence.

Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be retained in the same ownership as the remainder of the holding identified in the approved plans by the area edged blue, and shall not be sold off or disposed of separately without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the unit is managed and supervised for the benefit of the farm holding in accordance with Policies C15 and C17 Unitary Development Plan Policies.

4	Visibility and sight lines - J20

Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road including provision of separate pedestrian access to the public footpath and the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the building shall not be occupied 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.

6	Details of hard and soft landscaping - M10

7	Landscape implementation and maintenance - M12

In this condition "retained hedge or hedgerow" means an existing hedge or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. This includes the roadside hedges fronting Chale Lane and Gladices Lane.

(a) No retained hedge or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained hedge or hedgerow be reduced in height other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

(b) If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development the whole or any part of any retained hedge or hedgerow is removed, uprooted, is destroyed or dies, another hedge or hedgerow shall be planted at the same place and that hedge or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained hedge or hedgerow shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any fenced area in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered nor shall any excavation be made or fire be lit, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The use hereby permitted shall not commence until details of any external lighting to be installed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no additional lighting shall be installed/erected without the prior 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.

10	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01

11	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

12	Submission of samples/details - S03

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans which accompany the Decision Notice.

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.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the drainage system completed prior to occupation of the building.

Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/17752/E P/00844/04 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes North

Registration Date: 04/05/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Applicant: Hampshire Securities Ltd

St. Mildred’s Rectory, 73 Cambridge Road, East Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO326AH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a major application which raised a number of controversial issues all of which require determination by the Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application if determined at the meeting on 15 March will have taken 45 weeks to date having gone beyond the prescribed 13 week period for determination due to extensive negotiation mainly in respect of design, mass and scale issues and case officer workload.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a 0.35 hectare site which stands on the north eastern corner of the junction of Cambridge Road with Old Road. Site currently accommodates a substantial three storey detached vicarage dwelling (St. Mildred’s) standing within a heavily treed curtilage which includes a number of visually prominent mature trees. Immediately abutting the northern boundary on the Cambridge Road frontage is a semi-detached single storey property number 69 Cambridge Road (Fairways). Adjoining eastern boundary is a caravan park. Remaining boundaries front onto Old Road and Cambridge Road and there is an existing vehicular access at the junction of Old Road with Cambridge Road. Existing building stands centrally on the site. The area is generally characterised by a mixture of Victorian villas interspersed with pre-war and post-war infill developments resulting in an overall street scene of various styles, masses and heights.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In March 2003 an outline application for 14 flats in two/three storey block with associated parking and landscaping including alterations to existing and formation of new vehicular access was refused on the grounds that:

Layout and siting of dwellings would threaten long term retention of preserved trees resulting in loss of protected trees with their removal causing undue loss of visual amenity to the locality and affecting the site’s nature conservation value.

Application contained insufficient information in respect of drainage with the Local Planning Authority being unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal.

In August 2003 an application was received for the demolition of former rectory; construction of four storey building to form 14 flats; formation of vehicular access and parking facilities however application was formally withdrawn in November 2003. The reason for the withdrawal related to fundamental problems in respect of mass, height and general impact on neighbouring properties with the only alternative cause of action being a recommendation for refusal.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent sought for an ‘L shaped’ block having a central circular feature with two symmetrical wings in the form of single storey, two storey and three storey in height. The central circular wing includes a fourth floor in the form of a circular turret feature having access onto a roof terrace. None of the other floors have balcony or roof terrace access. The block is indicated to be within the north western half of the site.

Block provides the following schedule of accommodation:

Ground floor - 4 two bedroom units (units 1 and 2 having integral single garage).

- 1 one bedroom unit.

First floor - 2 three bedroom plus study.

Second floor - 2 three bedroom plus study.

Block provides for central living unit through three floors (first, second and third) having three bedrooms plus study accommodation with kitchen and lounge within the third floor turret structure as previously described.

Building has been designed in the art deco style features some of which are itemised as follows.

· Use of all render finish;

· Curved corners;

· Modular style of fenestration;

· Parapetted flat roof finish;

· Use of metal railings where required.

Art deco is a style of architecture associated in the main with the 1920’s and 30’s.

The main entrance to the building serving all but two of the flats is via an entrance lobby located on the south eastern facing elevation opposite the main parking area.

Proposal provides for the closure of the existing access at the junction of Old Road with Cambridge Road and the creation of a new access situated in a north western corner on the frontage to Cambridge Road adjacent the property 69 Cambridge Road. This new access serves a total of 12 parking spaces 10 of which are situated within the treed area within the south east of the site. Those 10 parking spaces are set out in a curved form. Parking area to be constructed in a porous form to allow surface water to soak away into the ground. Remaining two parking spaces are close to the new access entrance. Proposal also provides for two integral garage units on the south west facing elevation. Proposal therefore results in a total of 14 parking spaces.

Proposal does involve some removal of existing landscaping to accommodate the 10 parking spaces as previously described however apart from this loss proposal essentially retains existing landscape features along the Old Road frontage and the boundary which abuts the north eastern boundary. In terms of the north western boundary where it abuts the semi-detached bungalows 67 and 69 Cambridge Road this is to be extensively retained although will require some management.

In terms of relationship to adjoining boundary block at its closest is 6 metres off the north western boundary adjacent 69 Cambridge Road with that nearest element of the building being singles storey. Two storey element is approximately 9.6 metres off that boundary.

In terms of the Cambridge Road boundary block is at its closest 11 metres off the back edge of footpath with that element being single storey. The two storey element is 14.5 metres off the back edge and footpath.

The six individually preserved trees are shown to be retained.

Foul and surface water drainage to discharge into existing system.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site within development envelope boundary.

National policies covered in PPG3 – Housing March 2000 as follows:

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

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas taking pressures off green field sites.

· Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility to public transport, jobs, education, health facilities etc.

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 to 50 units per hectare quoted as being the appropriate levels of density with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in places with good public transport accessibility such as town centre sites.

· Emphasise the need for good quality designs.

· New housing development should not be viewed in isolation but should have regard for the immediate buildings of the wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect governments’ emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Reference is also made to Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (this replaces PPG1 – General Policies and Principles). This new document “sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.” The document also re-emphasises the importance that design plays in delivering sustainable development with the key issues being itemised as follows:

· Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places contributing positively to making places better for people.

· Designs which are inappropriate in their context failing to improve character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

· Good design should:

· “Address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access jobs and key services.

· Be integrated into the existing urban form and natural and built environments.

· Be an integral part of the process for ensuring its successful, safe and inclusive villages, towns and cities.

· Create an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society.

· Consider the direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.”

· Local Plan Policies should reflect the above design objectives by ensuring that developments:

· Are sustainable, durable and adaptable and make efficient and prudent use of resources.

· Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development.

· Respond to local context and create and reinforce local distinctiveness.

· Create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

· Visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

· Document reemphasises PPG1 policies which should:

· Avoid unnecessary prescription or detail.

· Should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscaping, layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and local areas more generally.

· Should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes.

· Should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles.

· But should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies of supplementary planning documents on design.

· Development should take full account of the needs of the disabled.

Local Plan Policies

Relevant local plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 – Standards of Design.

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site.

H4 – Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines.

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR6 – Cycling and Walking.

U11 – Infrastructure and Services Provision.

U2 – Ensuring Adequate Educational and Social Community Facilities.

Site is within Zone 2 in respect of the Council’s parking policies which requires the developer to provide a maximum of 0-50% of parking guidelines. Parking guidelines require a parking space per bedroom.

Site’s location within Zone 2 results in the development being subject of transport infrastructure payments at the rate of £750 per unit as a contribution to sustainable transport funds.

Site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order with six trees having individual Orders on them being five oak tree and one grey poplar trees. Remaining areas of trees subject to woodland order consisting of a range of trees.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved. Among conditions being suggested those relating to the:

· Closure of the existing access within one month of the occupation of the building.

· Building not to be occupied until the 14 car parking spaces have been provided.

Site has been visited by the former Tree Officer who expressed some concern regarding proximity of the trees to the proposed block however was satisfied that provided appropriate surgery works were carried out by a competent person and the surface treatment around the trees to provide access and parking is carried out in such a way as to not disturb the roots, not compact the soil and ensure is able to diffuse into the soil beneath the engineered surface then there is no reason to suggest the trees should not be retained.

Ecology Officer has expressed concern in the past that existing building may contain bats which are protected species and therefore their possible occupation of the site is a material consideration. Ecology Officer considers it is important that a survey is carried out by an appropriate licensed person and should be submitted with any application.

Council’s Architectural Liaison Officer (Crime Prevention) commented on the previous application which has some relevance to the current application.

· Generally he is concerned that some pruning of the trees may be required to improve surveillance.

· He considers the pedestrian entry at the junction of Old Road with Cambridge Road would be sufficient to assist a pedestrian access but would not consider a vehicular access would be appropriate in this location.

· He is generally concerned as far as possible surveillance all round the building is provided with any lighting provision being important to reduce fear of crime.

· He makes particular reference to the area around the car park and the rear pedestrian route where lighting should be adequate to provide a safe atmosphere.

In terms of ecology within the trees Assistant Ecology Officer has stated that landscape character is ideal for occupation by red squirrels and would be concerned at the removal of any of the woodland area which would clearly have an affect on wildlife habitat with particular reference to nesting birds. At the time of the inspection no evidence was found of badger setts. Any clearance of shrubs and similar materials should only occur outside bird nesting season.

Previous submission was accompanied by correspondence between the applicant and Southern Water which confirmed that both foul water and surface water can be accommodated within the existing systems in the area. Particular reference is made to the recent surface water sewer which is being laid in Old Road to serve the Barratts development and which has picked up existing surface water drainage outlets within its run and more significantly has freed up the existing combined sewer to create capacity for additional foul drainage.

Proposal has been placed before an Architects Panel who on a second occasion was presented with revised details which included omission of the balconies, changing the pitched roofs on the side wings to flat roofs in order to give more dominance to the circular drum feature and changes to the window treatment and balcony design. Panel made a number of detailed comments regarding these issues the most significant of which are as follows:

· Acknowledge advantages of omitting balconies thus overcoming potential for overlooking adjoining properties.

· Panel acknowledge the flat roof treatment to the winged elements insist in providing an improved relationship to the central circular feature. Panel were however not convinced about the design and appearance of the rectangular wings.

· Panel considered that the glass balustrading may be more appropriate to allow the corner tower to be more visually evident.

· In general members of the panel were concerned that circular drum feature was still dominated by the side wings and the overall relationship was therefore still not entirely satisfactory.

· Panel indicated that a model or three dimensional drawing was essential.

· Panel was not entirely convinced that the use of flat roofs improved the design or proportions of the building.

· Panel commented that the tower should still be more dominant and suggested that it was either raised or the side wings should be reduced.

· Panel noted that the scheme was intended to have an ‘art deco’ style but considered that the two dimensional drawings failed to indicate this.

Members were of the opinion that the design concept had some merit however the details did not address all their concerns.

The Design and Conservation Team have been consulted and a summary of their comments are as follows.

· Not convinced that the location of the site warrants a statement building.

· Not convinced that a pastiche of art deco is appropriate in this location.

· General concern at the lack of detailing on the submitted plans.

· Surprise that the flat roof areas are not to be used to balcony purposes as this was an inherent them of art deco design.

· Concern that construction details may compromise the art deco appearance.

· Not convinced that Cambridge Road and its environs does not have a defined character as indicated in the applicants design statement.

Conservation Officer has inspected the existing rectory building and her statement concludes that “In my opinion the building is pleasant but no exceptional. In the natural context it is not of sufficient quality to warrant an application for statutory listing though in the local environment it is clearly a building of some interest.”

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

East Cowes Town Council object to the application as follows.

· Standard of design is inappropriate.

· Height and mass is incompatible with the surrounding buildings.

· It will detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

· Proposal will result in the loss of outlook in respect of adjoining buildings.

· Cambridge Road consists of Edwardian and Victorian houses. This building would look out of place within the street scene.

· This development would require the removal of many mature trees; this site has been identified for its natural features and it worthy of retention.

· Surrounding properties would be overlooked with loss of privacy in lounges and bedrooms and gardens.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been the subject of 26 letters of objection, 14 from residents of Cambridge Road which include owners of the properties which abut and stand opposite the site, 5 from residents of Old Road, 2 from residents of Hefford Road and 1 each from the residents of Barton Close, St. Thomas Road, Adelaide Grove, Waverley Park Caravan site and Millfield Avenue Residents Association. The points raised are summarised as follows.

· Art Deco design approach inappropriate and out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

· Mass and height of block with particular reference to the four storey element will create and over dominant feature again out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

· Proposal has an excessive footprint which is effectively same as previously withdrawn application and covers excessive amount of the site.

· Particular concern expressed regarding the ‘tower feature’ as being inappropriate and contributing to the excessive height and more importantly introducing an overlooking issue with regard to adjoining properties.

· Proposal is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the existing landscape with particular reference to relative location of the individually preserved trees.

· Concern that loss or disturbance to the landscape will impact on wildlife habitat with particular reference to red squirrels.

· Concern that the need to provide parking within the environs of the trees will impact on the long term retention of those trees.

· Both neighbouring property owners, opposite and adjacent the site, are particularly concerned at the potential for overlooking from the proposed block.

· Number of residents concerned at the loss of the rectory building which they consider should be retained and listed with suggestion that this property could be converted into flats thus resulting in a more acceptable type of development.

· Concern relating to general ground stability of the area with particular reference to natural springs and the disturbance that will be caused by this development to that situation.

· Some objectors question the need for this type of accommodation with the greater need being for affordable housing.

· Proposal represents over development of the site accommodating an excessive number of units.

· Number of parking spaces insufficient to cater for the level of development proposed thus resulting in likely pressures on on-street parking which would be particularly dangerous given the site’s close proximity to the junction of Cambridge Road with Old Road.

· Concern at the location of the access off Cambridge Road and the hazards to road users that will be caused with particular reference to school children.

· Concern at the general disturbance that will be caused by construction work and construction traffic.

· Reference made to the position of the access and intrusion of headlights from vehicles leaving the site.

· Proposal fails to comply with policies D1 or D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

EVALUATION

Members will not that this has proved to be a particularly contentious application attracting a considerable level of local opposition. The numerous issues which have been raised are itemised as follows.

Principle

This is the third attempt to seek consent on this site with the previous two resulting in a refusal and a withdrawn application. None of this planning history question the principle of redevelopment of the site with the format of the schemes and their impact on the character and circumstances which relate to the site causing those schemes to be effectively refused. Therefore whilst acknowledging local residents concern in respect of the loss of the rectory building it would be unsustainable to justify a refusal of this application on the grounds of the loss of that building. This is particularly the case given the report from the Council’s Conservation Officer whose advice is that the building does not have sufficient quality to sustain a request to consider its listing. It is also important to appreciate that the site is neither within or close to a conservation area and there are no nearby listed buildings.

Density

This is a substantial corner site 0.35 hectares in area only part of which can be developed on the basis of need to retain existing landscape features. However density calculations are based on the advice contained in PPG3 and therefore the overall area has to be taken into account and this results in a density of 28.5 units per hectare in respect of the current scheme. This is just below the suggested minimum density given by central government as being appropriate for urban sites. Given the particular circumstances of the site in respect of landscape features this underdevelopment of the site could be justified. From the above Members will appreciate that any refusal of this application on the basis of overdevelopment in terms of density would be totally unsustainable.

Parking Provision

The site is on the edge of but within parking zone 2 which requires a maximum of 0 to 50 % of parking guidelines (parking guidelines relates to a parking space per bedroom). Again I acknowledge local concern regarding the level of parking provision however under the policy the 14 parking spaces being provided represents the maximum parking provision that can be provided. Also the provision of 14 car parking spaces also complies with the 1.5 parking space average referred to in PPG3. Therefore the parking provision both complies with local and national policies and again could not be cited as a reason for refusal.

Location of the parking spaces within the development has been suitably dispersed with the main area of 10 parking spaces being located relative to the main entrance to the building with a further two parking spaces conveniently placed close to the new access off Cambridge Road. The remaining two parking spaces are in the form of integral garages.

Access

This application does not involve any access onto Old Road and proposes to stop up the existing access at the junction of Old Road with Cambridge Road. The access has therefore been located in the only position that would be acceptable i.e. off Cambridge Road the furthest distance that can be achieved from the junction of Cambridge Road and Old Road. Members will note that in this position the access receives the support of the Highway Engineer and again despite the concerns being expressed by local residents I do not consider that a refusal on the basis that the access in this position will cause hazards to highway users would be sustainable as a reason for refusal.

Drainage/Ground Stability

Evidence is available indicating that the applicant and Southern Water have been in correspondence which confirms that both foul water and surface water can be accommodated within existing systems in the area. In this regard particular reference is made to the recent surface water sewer which has been laid in Old Road to service the Barratts development further to the east. This surface water sewer was required to service that site but more significantly has freed up the existing combined sewer which serves the area thus creating capacity for additional foul drainage.

In terms of ground stability with particular reference to underground springs whilst noting these concerns this is a building regulation issue with the applicant being required to submit foundation details as part of that process.

Effect on Landscape/Wildlife Habitat

The main difference between this proposal and the previous proposal is that the footprint of the block has been sited within the more open area of the site having purposely avoided any encroachment on the woodland area. It is recognised that the block is in close proximity to two of the individually preserved trees however I am satisfied that a condition can be applied requiring a programme for surgery in respect of those trees. The one tree closest to the building is located in the north eastern area of the site however this abuts the single/two storey element of the northern wing thus reducing the likelihood of conflict.

In terms of the potential impact that the provision of 10 parking spaces may have on the root spread of existing trees a document issued by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service provides advice on a no-dig construction which has three objectives namely:

· Roots must not be severed;

· Soil must not be compacted; and

· Oxygen must be able to diffuse into the soil beneath the engineered surface.

This is achieved by the use of a porous granular material of a thickness of 100-200 mm laid on top of the existing ground levels terminating at least 0.5 of a metre off the trunk of any nearby trees. Again this is an issue which can be adequately covered by way of condition.

In terms of wildlife habitat application has been accompanied by a report issued by the Bat Consultancy and Advisory service. This report clarifies that a survey was carried out on the internal roof space of the existing house with there being no bats present at the time of the survey. The survey itself was carried out in March 2004. The report concludes by suggesting that:

“I recommend that before any demolition work being carried out on the above mentioned property that a night time emergent check is carried out to make sure that bats are not roosting in any part of this building that cannot be visually checked.”

The comments in respect of the possible red squirrel occupation of the site are noted however the proposal should have minimal effect on the woodland area as a whole and therefore any habitat should be protected. I also note the reference in respect of the timing of any clearance of any shrubs and similar materials which could adequately be covered by condition.

Mass, Height and Design

This certainly represents the most important and controversial of the various issues and therefore will be dealt with in some detail. The application has been accompanied by a design statement which has been prepared by a qualified architect and this along with the submitted plans and particularly the artist impression forms the basis of the assessment of this issue. The question has to be whether or not the conceptual analysis within the design statements provides a sufficiently robust justification for both the principle of a statement building on this site and the particular architectural style that has been proposed. The design statement itself is a document covering a number of issues the most relevant of which are summarised as follows:

· The structure is described as being “designed with a series of steps of break backs starting from the first floor going up to the second floor providing flat roofs which are designed to take advantage of sea views to the north but are not able to be accessed to protect the privacy of nearby residents.”

· Third floor element is limited to a ‘lighthouse’ feature being located at the junction of the ‘arms’ ensuring that it is at the maximum distance from all boundaries. The architect makes the point that it can only be seen obliquely from an angle with its prominence being masked to a great degree bearing in mind the landscape screening on the site.

· Architect acknowledges that one of the individually TPO’d trees will cause an element of overshadowing however that flat does stretch through the block with most of the main windows on the south west facing elevation. Architect confirms that none of the individually TPO’d trees will be affected by the revised development.

· Architect acknowledges that the new proposal exceeds the scale of the original rectory building however the stepping and the location of the new block on the site uses the tree cover to advantage and will therefore considerably diminish the visual impact on the local area.

· The Art Deco style of the building results in a smooth cement wall finish which the architect points out is common to many of the larger buildings in the town and provides clean and clear cut modelling to the facets of the building including the curvature of the tower. Fenestration would be in the form of metal windows enamel finished and hand rails will be of a stainless steel all to ensure a smooth clean line to the building style.

· Finally architect points out that the ground floor integral garage units have been designed to be suitable for occupation by disabled.

Probably the most contentious issue on which clearly opinions are divided is the general assessment of the local character. The architect has addressed this issue within his design statement and the points raised are summarised as follows:

· Architect carried out a survey around the site extending some 1000 metres either way and has accompanied the design statement with a number of photographs.

· He points out that East Cowes does not have a predominant building style with the built environment being of insufficient quantity to warrant conservation area status.

· Many of the larger houses were formerly in substantial grounds enabling later infill developments within those grounds due to the road frontage location of those larger houses.

· The benefits that accrued from Queen Victoria’s regular occupation of Osborne House was the influence it had on the construction of a number of Victorian villas within the town of which there are a number of examples within Cambridge Road.

· Architect points out that “The advent of building through the pre-first World War and the increase in residential buildings between the wars has not only diminished the impact of the Victorian period but has introduced many low scale plan buildings with little or no specific character.”

The result of this analysis leads him to the view that there is no defined positive character to the area. He states that it is “an inglorious amalgam of many styles”. In respect of general scale of development in the area he points out that there are “many three storey buildings some with extensions which increase the volume, but few stand out as ‘statement’ buildings of merit.”

Members will appreciate the importance of this analysis for it has been fundamental in determining the architectural approach. Conversely, Members will also appreciate that there are basis disagreements with the architect’s conclusion and that the case for a statement Art Deco building has not been justified and that the application should therefore be refused.

Whilst fully respecting these views the issue of design is always subjective in any event and the considerations therefore have to be whether or not the architect has carried out the appropriate design audit. I have already made reference to the design advice contained in PPS1 which to a great degree is covered by policy D1 (Standards of Design). The very nature of a statement building suggests that it has been purposely designed not to integrate with the existing urban form or in this case that urban form is not being considered of sufficient merit by the architect to warrant being the guideline to mass, scale and architectural style.

With regard to the contextual analysis itself I make reference to design advice document By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System Towards Better Practice. This document provides advice on the identification of constraints and opportunities and lists a number of issues which require assessment in that process. When related to the current proposal, the architect has followed all the steps advised in that development. Whilst there will always be a difference of opinion as to the conclusion there comes from that analysis the fact remains that a sufficient assessment has been carried out given that the site is neither within or adjacent a conservation area or nearby any listed buildings.

With regard to the choice of design this is also being criticised by local residents and the Council’s own Design and Conservation Team are not convinced that the case for an Art Deco design has been fully justified.

Firstly it is important to establish that Art Deco is a pastiche albeit of a specific style of architecture associated with the 1920/30’s and therefore should not be seen as a modern contemporary design. The process of choosing this design has been again addressed within the design statement which is summarised as follows.

· The footprint and location on site has been established by the existing landscape which the architect acknowledges is of considerable importance. Therefore the basic central element, with two wings have been purposely located to occupy the open ground without impinging on the trees or their canopies.

· Initially the design concept was for a central core or tower with the two wings being roofed more traditionally with pitched roofs however it was considered that these were creating a building excessive in height and mass and that a preferred option would be to provide flat roofs linked to the central tower.

· Having already concluded that the site deserved a statement building the decision was taken to promote and develop the ‘Art Deco’ style accommodating all the features associated with that style thus providing an exciting focus to the overall design.

· In developing the design concept reference has been made to examples of Art Deco style buildings.

· He emphasises that “this style of design was not a decision that was taken lightly, it was however developed to give East Cowes a dramatic style of building, similar to Osborne Court in Cowes. He also refers to other examples of Art Deco style in the Royal York Hotel, Ryde and the dwelling house in Ward Avenue, Cowes.”

The architect emphasises that “Art Deco is a defined, animated and stimulating architectural style worthy of the quality of the site and which on completion should be a credit to the town of East Cowes.”

In terms of the Architects’ Panel detailed comment again the applicants’ architect has addressed these in part where he considers it to be appropriate and has provided statements why other concerns are considered to be inappropriate in his opinion. I generally consider that the Panel’s concerns have been addressed by way of additional information and particularly in respect of the submission of the artists impression which has assisted significantly in presenting the scheme in the context of the site and is certainly superior to the two dimensional plans which accompany the application.

Whilst I fully appreciate the subjectivity of this issue with Art Deco being a design style not to everybody’s taste the fact remains that the architect in this case has followed the recognised process which accords with the advice contained in the various design documents with particular reference to PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development. In this regard Members are reminded that that document continues to advise that planning authorities should avoid “unnecessary prescription or detail” and "should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain forms or styles." Significantly the document advises that in terms of architecture the planning authority "should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes."

In terms of mass and height obviously this is an inherent part of the architectural design process

I have some sympathy with the local concerns regarding this issue for there is no doubt that the overall scale of the building will exceed any other in the area. This to a great extent is reflected in the concerns of the Conservation and Design team however, given that the architect's approach has been to achieve a statement building then inevitably such a building is likely to be excessive in scale to achieve that end.

The main question is whether the height changes within the building have been satisfactorily dispersed within the overall mass to reduce visual and environmental impact. In this case the single/two storey ends of the wings have been located adjacent the boundaries (ie adjacent 69 Cambridge Road and abutting Cambridge Road frontage) with the four storey element sitting centrally on the site essentially furthest from the public highway. This arrangement of the various heights when linked to the design will result in a building which has a notable impact on the area but not to a degree which could be deemed to be over dominant.

Environmental Impact

The concerns of the neighbouring property (69 Cambridge Road) have been noted, the applicants have agreed that the two flat roofs to the single storey and two storey elements, shall not be used as balconies and those windows facing in that direction shall also have the lower halves of the windows obscure glazed. I consider that subject to the see conditions being applied, the potential for overlooking will be overcome.

With regard to the impact on the properties opposite the site in Cambridge Road, I consider the levels and the distances to be such that it would be unreasonable to require obscure glazing within the ground and first floor windows which face in that direction.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that an approval recommendation is appropriate in this case despite the level of concern from local residents. The most controversial issue of scale and design has been addressed with the applicant providing the necessary supporting information justifying the architectural approach. Inevitably a design of this style will always generate differences of opinion at all levels and it is fair to state that this is a balanced recommendation on the basis that providing the integrity of the Art Deco style is adhered to this proposal should add overall quality to the character of the area. I accept that there is some apparent conflict when assessing this proposal against Policy D1 however, the basic test of that policy relates to insuring enhancement of the area by securing good design quality which will contribute to the visual integrity of the area. Other issues relating to density, parking provision, access, drainage, ground stability and effect on landscape/wildlife have been assessed and any concerns relating to these issues can be adequately covered by way of conditions.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval (revised plans). Subject to conditions which includes a requirement to enter into a Section 106 Agreement prior to any of the works commencing covering financial contributions of:

a) £21,450 (10 x £2,145 per unit) covering education facilities

b) £7,500 (£750 x 10) covering transport infrastructure payments

c) £2,900 (£290 x 10) covering upgrading of local open space and

recreation facilities.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be initiated by the undertaking of material operation as defined in Section 56 (4) A to D of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the person submitting the same that it is to the Local Planning Authorities approval. The said planning obligation will provide for:

a) sum of £21,450 (10 x £2,145) to be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution to education facilities.

b) the sum of £7,500 (10 x £750) to be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution to transports infrastructure.

c) The payment of £2,900 (10 x £290) to be paid to the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of upgrading local open space and recreational facilities.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision of a) education facilities, b) transport infrastructure facilities, c) open space and recreation facilities in compliance with Policy U2 (Insuring adequate educational, social and community facilities for the future population), Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The external wall surfaces of the proposed building shall be painted and thereafter maintained in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The building shall not be occupied until such external finish has been completed and any such finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and character of the building in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding the provision of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the external wall surfaces of the building hereby approved shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and character of the proposed buildings in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

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; and the building shall not be occupied 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 TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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 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.

No later than one month after the day on which the building hereby permitted is first occupied the existing access to the site on the corner of Cambridge Road and Old Road shall be permanently closed in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

8	Means of vehicular access to the permitted building shall be from Cambridge Road only as indicated on the plans hereby approved. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until parking spaces have been laid out within the site in accordance with the drawings hereby approved (12 parking spaces and 2 garages) to be parked and for vehicles to loaded and unloaded and for private cars to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in a forward gear. This space shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose including the garages other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

Reason: In the interests of insuring onsite parking provision and in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the bus stop in Cambridge Road has been relocated in a position to be agreed to allow access for the site to be formed.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure and covered parking of a minimum of 10 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles in compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

12	Visibility and sight lines - J20

Existing trees which are to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars shall be subject to paragraphs A and B below. Such condition shall have effect until the expiration of three years from the date of the occupation of the building hereby approved.

A) No retained preserved tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with the British Standard 3998 (Tree work).

B) If any retained preserved tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place or a place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained and in the interest of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees or group of trees have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification:

1.2 metre minimum height chestnut paling to be S1722 Part 4 standard securely mounted on 1.2 minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground. Such fencing or barriers shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on site during which period the following restrictions shall apply.

a) no placement or storage of material

b) no placement or storage of chemicals

c) no placement or storage of excavated soil

d) no lighting of bonfires

e) no physical damage to bark or branches

f) no changes to natural ground drainage in the area

g) no changes in ground levels

h) no digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers

i) any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged

Reason: To insure that the preserved trees and groups of trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to the commencement of work a detailed scheme shall be submitted indicating the construction method of the proposed access drives along with the surface treatment to the proposed 10 parking spaces to the south east of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall accord with the arboricultural practice note (Trees in Focus Practical Care and Management issued by The Arboricultural and Advisory Information Service dated 1999. Any such detailed porous surface finish shall be carried out in accordance with those agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. No occupation of the building hereby approved shall take place until this agreed surface treatment has been completed.

Reason: To insure the protection and retention of the trees in the interest of the amenities of the area and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These works shall be carried out as approved prior to occupation of the building hereby approved. Such scheme shall specify position and species and size of any trees and shrubs to be planted along with timing of such planting and shall include provision for their maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Scheme shall also include type, colour and texture of any block paving and shall ensure that the parking spaces are marked within the car parking layout. Such landscaping shall include for additional hedge planting along the northern boundary abutting No. 69 Cambridge Road.

Reason: To insure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping ) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No occupation shall take place of the building hereby approved, until a hard and soft landscaping management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such plan shall include long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all the hard and soft landscape areas. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved thereafter.

Reason: To ensure long term maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping of the site in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No tree surgery or scrub/shrub removal shall take place until an inspection has taken place to establish the presence of nesting birds. Should evidence of active bird nesting including nests under construction, eggs or dependent young be found the tree surgery work/scrub clearing should only be undertaken in accordance with the scheme and timetable agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the ecological value of the habitat and in accordance with policies C8, C9 and C10 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

No demolition works of the existing building shall take place until a further bat survey has been carried out to establish the presence of bats and their roosts. Should bats, evidence of bats or their roosts be found, the demolition of the building shall only be undertaken in accordance with a scheme and timetable agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the ecological value of the habitat and in accordance with Policy C8, C9 and C10 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development hereby approved is commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing construction and material detailing in respect of the proposed windows, doors parpetted roof finish, third floor balcony railings and any other external decorative features proposed.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic forward development in the interests of the 'art deco' character of the proposed building in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

Lower half of the northfacing fenestration within flats 7 and 10 shall be in the form of non-opening and obscure glazing which 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 IOW Unitary Development Plan.

The flat roof areas and first, second and third floor level on the building hereby approved shall not be used as balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. The balcony use shall be limited to the circular balcony indicated at third floor level.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied until details of any lighting to be installed in respect of the car parking and amenity areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such lighting scheme shall be carried in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the future occupiers and adjoining property owners in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCPL/23329/H P/01917/04 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 09/09/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mrs P Lewington

Construction of yacht haven & town pier

section of foreshore between The Royal Yacht Squadron and opposite the bandstand, The Parade, Cowes, PO31

See joint report under reference TCP/23329/H.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

Prior to any work commencing on site, a full method statement providing details of the timescales for carrying out of the operations, the means of construction, delivery and storage of materials and measures to be implemented to ensure stability of the sea wall has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed method statement.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the nearby residents and to minimise disturbance to the candidate special area for conservation in accordance with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies D1(Standard of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a full schedule of materials and finishes, including the colour of the access bridge to the haven and town pier and concrete colour to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to commencement of any construction works at the site, a programme of measures aimed at mitigating the impact of construction traffic and requiring delivery by sea wherever possible, including details and times of vehicle movements shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the delivery of materials and construction of development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, nearby residents and highway safety and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Unless the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained in writing, works of construction at the site, other than delivery of materials, shall only be carried out between 0700 hours and 2000 hours Monday to Friday, 0700 hours and 1800 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and recognised bank holidays.

Reason: To restrict to a minimum the possible noise nuisance from the proposed works and comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to any construction work commencing on site, a schedule of noisy operations proposed to be carried out at the site shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, those specified noisy operations shall only be carried out during the period 0900 hours and 1700 hours Monday to Friday and not at any other time, unless agreed in advance by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to work commencing on site, details of all lighting, including navigation lights, to be installed/erected on the haven and town pier hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, only such approved lighting shall be installed/erected on the facilities unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light Spillage) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No fuel shall be stored at, or refueling take place within, the haven or at the town pier, unless required in the event of an emergency.

Reason: To avoid possible pollution and to safeguard the interests of nature conservation in the area and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution and Development), P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development), C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9 (Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation) and C10 (Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to any work commencing on site, a scheme for the provision of CCTV cameras and lockable gates, or such other methods considered appropriate to prevent unauthorised access to the haven and town pier from the shore, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To reduce the opportunities for crime and to comply with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Within two years of the date of work commencing on the formation of the haven, work shall have commenced and be substantially completed in respect of the provision of The Parade Landing, with the exception of the pier decks flanking the upper section of the linkspan, or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of improving public access to the waterfront and to comply with the aims of the Cowes Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plans, no additional pontoons shall be added to the Royal Yacht Squadron haven or The Parade landing without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order for the Local Planning Authority to consider the impacts of additional pontoons in the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated or Defined Areas) and policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place within the area indicated edged in red on the approved plan until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that details of the archaeological site can be properly investigated prior to any development of that part of the site being carried out and to comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Should any archaeological deposits be encountered during development, all works must immediately cease until the importance, date, nature, extent and state of preservation have been assessed and a mitigation scheme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect finds of archaeological importance during carrying out of the permitted operations and to comply with policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to work commencing on site, full details of the design, colour and materials to be used in the fabrication of the handrails to the pier decks and The Parade Landing pontoon have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out and retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12.

LBC/23329/J P/01921/04 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 09/09/2004 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Mrs P Lewington

LBC for construction of yacht haven & town pier

section of foreshore between The Royal Yacht Squadron and opposite the bandstand, The Parade, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Although falling into the category of a minor application, this proposal raises a number of significant issues to be considered and has attracted a high level of public interest, both in support of and objecting to the development.

This application was considered at the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 15 February 2005 where Members resolved to defer consideration of the matter in order that further negotiations could take place in respect of the Town Pier element of the proposal to secure a scheme providing greater public access. Following discussions with applicant's agent, further plans have been submitted showing alterations to the Town Pier and additional information provided clarifying situation with regard to public access to this facility. For ease of reference, amendments to this report are produced in bold type.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 27 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The processing of the application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for the determination of planning applications due to the need to obtain responses from all consultees and case officer workload. A further delay has been incurred following deferral of the application from the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 15 February 2005 in order that negotiations could take place in respect of the Town Pier element of this proposal.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of foreshore at north western end of The Parade and in front of the Royal Yacht Squadron. The majority of the works will take place below mean low water. The yacht haven facility would be accessed from the existing walkway in front of the Royal Yacht Squadron premises and the town pier from existing flight of steps off The Parade.

The majority of the work and, in particular, the yacht haven would fall within the area considered to be part of the setting of Cowes Castle (Royal Yacht Squadron premises) which is a Grade II* listed building. In addition, proposal would necessitate works to the steps in front of the property which are also considered to form part of the listing as curtilage structures. Cowes Castle occupies an elevated position above the foreshore and forms a landmark building, particularly when viewed from the sea.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11829/C/5456 – Planning permission refused May 1967 for construction of a pier and pontoon opposite the Gloster Hotel, The Parade on grounds that the proposal would be seriously detrimental to the amenities and character of the immediate neighbourhood. The pier/pontoon was shown on submitted plans to be roughly L shaped projecting some 36 metres from the sea wall.

TCP/11829A/C/6040 – Planning permission approved August 1968 for construction of jetty, mooring pontoons and ramp at The Parade. The structure was shown on submitted plans to be F shaped projecting approximately 40 metres from the sea wall.

TCP/11829B/C/8001 – Planning permission refused September 1972 for construction of a pier and pontoon on grounds that proposal would be detrimental to visual amenities of the area. Submitted plans showed walkway projecting from Parade giving access to relatively substantial landing stage will overall length of approximately 50 metres.

TCP/11829C/M/414 – Outline planning permission for pier conditionally approved April 1986. although seeking outline consent only, siting and means of access were considered and plans which accompanied submission showed structure virtually identical to that previously refused comprising walkway from Parade providing access to relatively substantial landing stage having overall length of approximately 50 metres.

In addition to planning applications detailed above, Cowes Castle has been subject to number of planning applications and applications for Listed Building Consent in respect of alterations and extensions, although none are considered to be relevant to the current proposal.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Current proposal effectively involves two elements, a yacht haven and what is referred to as the town pier.

The haven would be formed through the construction of an L-shaped breakwater constructed of concrete blocks with moulded masonry lines to match the existing harbour walls, which contain cut and dressed stonework, and moulded concrete. Rock armour would be placed on the exposed outer face of the breakwater which would be graded half to three tonne rock of similar bulk to the existing foreshore. Information which accompanies the submission indicates that this would be imported durable breakwater rock, for example granite or hard limestone. The breakwater will extend a maximum distance of 80 metres from the foreshore and would enclose an area of sheltered water amounting to approximately 3000 square metres.

A set of steps, known as the Royal Yacht Squadron steps, lead out from the harbour parade wall, over the foreshore and continue below the water line. These steps presently have a length of approximately 53 metres and extend into the area which is to be dredged in the formation of the haven. Therefore, whilst the upper section of these steps will remain for a distance of approximately 32 metres, the lower section, the majority of which generally lies below mean low water will need to be removed. These steps are considered to form part of the curtilage to Cowes Castle and, as such, form part of the listing.

It is understood that the haven would provide mooring facilities for the launches operated by the Royal Yacht Squadron and will facilitate the installation of three pontoons capable of accommodating around a dozen boats 40 feet in length. Access to the pontoons would be provided from the existing walkway in front of Cowes Castle by means of an access bridge. A turret feature and navigation lights would be located on the outer end of the breakwater. The turret section was originally intended to echo the castle battlement as well as protecting and signalling the haven entrance.

On the plans which accompanied the original submission the town pier was shown to be created by positioning a floating pontoon with length of approximately 80 metres roughly parallel to the foreshore at a distance of approximately 42 metres from the sea wall. This pontoon would be anchored to the seabed using cables which, it is understood, are less susceptible to storm damage and remove the need for a number of heavy vertical piles. However, a smaller landing pontoon would be positioned immediately adjacent the main pontoon which would be held in position by four piles and would support the seaward end of an access bridge providing access to the foreshore via an existing flight of steps which projects out from The Parade. It is understood that, due to its position south of the proposed haven, the town pier would also benefit from protection provided by the breakwater to be constructed to form the haven itself.

Following further negotiations with the applicant's agent, revised plans have been submitted in respect of the town pier element. The revised plans show the following details:

The platform projecting at right angles from The Parade would be increased in length from 11 metres to approximately 17 metres, which would be flanked by balustrading to match that along The Parade, over which there would be unrestricted public access.

The restraint landing at the seaward end of the linkspan has been increased to approximately 8 metres by 6 metres which would be fully handrailed around the perimeter.

Handrails would be provided on either side of the main pontoon over a distance of approximately 12 metres where it adjoins the linkspan with a central handrail over the remainder of the pontoon. The final width of the main pontoon is subject to detailed engineering design and wave calculations but is likely to be a minimum of 4 metres wide and maximum of 6 metres, giving increased stability and space. Plans also show possible extension of 20 metres on southern end.

Provision of two flanking pier decks are shown at the end of the platform which projects from The Parade, extending this element by a further eight metres beyond low water mark. These elements would be enclosed by simple handrailing and contain seating for use by the members of the public. The provision of these elements would be subject to additional funding being available.

The revised plans were accompanied by covering letter providing additional information in support of proposal, in which the Town Pier element is now referred to as the Parade Landing. The applicant's agent suggests that people tend to associate a pier with a Victorian fixed structure and, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, advises that modern piers are almost always a floating construction allowing a far wider range of craft to dock. Therefore, they indicate that it is their intention to refer to this scheme as "Squadron Haven and Parade Landing" in future. The structure will continue to comprise both fixed and floating elements and there is therefore no change in the concept contained in the drawings and model previously submitted. In addition to the detailed changes to the drawings, the following information is also provided in the covering letter:

Permanent public access would be available on the upper level, subject to health and safety requirements, which will be balustraded like The Parade.

The landing pontoon has been realigned further out in The Channel which will create less dredging and better deflection of river flow around the Squadron break water and hence improved accessibility for larger public and private vessels to come alongside, including the 700 tonne Waverley, when tide and weather conditions are appropriate. The pontoon is still well clear of the main navigation channel.

The additional flanking pier decks at the end of and on either side of the fixed element of The Parade landing would provide permanent access to the public, unless it is necessary to close them on health and safety grounds i.e. in storm conditions.

The Parade Landing, including the linkspan, will generally be open to the public at all times for the purpose of landing or embarking from boats of all types and sizes, subject to Cowes Harbour Commission bylaws, which would prohibit inappropriate use (this aspect is addressed in a statement from Cowes Harbour Commission which is attached to this report as an appendix). The CCTV and gates would be subject of discussions with the police authority although it is anticipated that the gates will be provided at the start of the linkspan bridge.

The entire area of The Parade Landing would be open to fisherman on a simple permit system, again under the control of Cowes Harbour Commission bylaws.

Matters relating to inappropriate use of The Parade Landing are addressed in a statement from Cowes Harbour Commission which is attached to this report as an appendix.

The submission was accompanied by information in support of the proposal, including a design statement and a document providing additional environmental information. The design statement asserts that this development will improve the Squadron's existing facilities for the benefit of club members and local, national and international yachting events. The document indicates that the first phase of the project will involve the construction of the haven followed by the construction of the town pier. It is understood that the haven would, strictly in the short term, provide berthing facilities for squadron members only while the town pier would primarily be for eventing/public landing, potentially under the control of Cowes Harbour Commission. It is not intended that there should be general pedestrian access onto the breakwater to the haven, other than for maintenance and servicing, as this is too exposed a location to risk public access. The structure is designed to be over topped by waves and public access, even if considered possible, would require a higher and wider structure with handrails raising the profile still further. It is intended that the town pier would provide a much more accessible berth for larger vessels. Other steps and landing points along The Parade would remain available for small boats and leisure use.

Additional environmental information is contained in quite a substantial document covering a range of issues including the need for the facility, dredging requirements and other environmental issues, particularly the impact of the proposal on the marine environment in this area, the coastline of which is designated as a candidate Special Area for Conservation. A copy of the design statement and executive summary from this document is attached to this report as an appendix. The full document can be made available on request.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 20 (PPG20) - Coastline Planning, provides a comprehensive statement of policies in relation to coastal planning. The guidance note acknowledges that the coast is an important national resource and that a range of economic and social activities require coastal locations with certain natural and historic landscapes and habitats particular to coastal areas. It advises that, against this background, it is the role of the planning system to reconcile development requirements with the need to protect, conserve and where appropriate, improve the landscape, environmental quality, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities of the coast. In addition, the PPG acknowledges that the coastline is dynamic and shaped by powerful natural processes which is varied in its topography, including cliffs, estuarine marshes and mud flats, coastal lowlands and sand dune systems, each being subject to its individual set of natural processes and own special qualities as an environmental, economic and recreational resource.

In terms of policies for development that require a coastal location, PPG20 highlights, under the heading of tourism, that one particular type of development where there has been a rapid increase in demand in the last 20 years has been for mariners and other facilities for boat mooring, parking and launching. It is considered that this demand is likely to continue for the foreseeable future although such demand varies considerably from region to region with additional craft each year placing great pressure on existing facilities. The PPG suggests that, when considering applications for mariners, the Local Planning Authority should pay particular attention to arrangements for access and parking and that any associated development should be assessed separately, on its own merits, taking into account whether it requires a coastal location. The document advises that public access to the coast should be a basic principle, unless it can be demonstrated that this is damaging to nature conservation or impractical and that this applies to both developed and undeveloped coast.

The development boundary in this area, as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, follows the line of mean low water mark and, therefore, the majority of the site is located outside the boundary. The coastline in this area is designated as a candidate Special Area for Conservation (cSAC) and the site immediately adjoins the designated Conservation Area and Cowes Castle which is a Grade II* Listed Building. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S6 - All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design.

S10 – In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve of enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B1 - Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings.

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage.

C3 - Development of the Coast Outside of Development Envelopes.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C9 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

L8 - Jettys, Pontoons and Slipways.

The proposal falls within the area, the subject of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on the Cowes waterfront initiative which commenced with Project Cowes. This is considered to be a vibrant and unique project to secure a vibrant and prosperous future for the Medina Valley, the aim of which is to attract new investment to provide the opportunities, facilities and attractions that both local people and visitors can enjoy. The Strategic Development Framework sets out the vision for Project Cowes and a detailed programme of new projects. It focuses on a number of key priorities, identified by local people during the consultation process which, of most relevance to the current proposal, includes capitalising on and strengthening Cowes status as an international centre of yachting excellence and as the ‘home’ of UK sailing.

The SPG identifies five zones along the Medina Valley characterised by the nature of uses within those areas. The application site falls within zone 1 which encompasses an area at the northern end of the Medina estuary, including the existing town centres of Cowes and East Cowes and their associated waterfronts. These areas are characterised by town centre, leisure and event activities. Within this area, the SPG identifies key opportunities including, of particular relevance to the current proposal, new waterfront access and new marina facilities.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader considers that the plans which accompanied the original submission were lacking in information considered essential before the proposal could be properly assessed. Therefore, she requested additional information as follows:

· Full details, including drawings of the Squadron steps as existing, and proposed clearly indicating the extent of the steps to be removed and how the resultant structure would be finished.

· An elevation of the breakwater from the west showing its relationship to the listed building (RYS) and its context.

· A plan showing the area of the proposed bridge head as it exists, including the angled masonry and details of how that area will be affected by the proposal as the proposed bridge head details as shown are not adequate in terms of detail/effect on historic masonry.

· A copy of a plan of the proposed breakwater and haven in relation to the existing starboard fairway buoy would provide an understanding of how far and where the proposal would extend.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader advises that the planning application appears, on balance, to be unacceptable in principle regarding its impact on the conservation area and setting of the listed building(s). She considers that there would be a distinct change in the character and appearance of the conservation area which will fail to preserve or enhance. She made a number of observations about the detailing of the proposal and how this impacted on and was generally unsympathetic to the listed building and conservation area. Notwithstanding these concerns, she made a number of suggestions as to how the scheme could be improved. In particular, she considered that the tower proposed for the outer end of the breakwater was a sham and would, when viewed from the water, not sit well with the historic building. It was suggested that there was an opportunity for something more striking and perhaps modern which might identify the location as more of a landmark (or seamark). A number of recommendations were made in respect of the means of enclosure, detailing and colour of structures at the entrance to the haven from the existing promenade area and in respect of the detailing to the town pier.

She suggested that the height and the uncluttered top of the proposed breakwater should not be increased or added to as this would have an adverse impact on the conservation area and adjacent Listed Building. Any such proposals would attract a recommendation for refusal from her. Following a meeting between the Conservation and Design Team Leader and the applicant’s agent, the scheme was amended and further plans and report on the justification for the design aspects of the proposal was submitted, generally addressing the concerns raised over the detailing of the proposal.

Councils Ecology Officer advises that the proposals are located adjacent to and partially within the Solent Marine cSAC and, consequently, the possibility of a likely significant effect of the development upon the interest features of the designated area must be considered. He commented that English Nature have advised the Planning Authority that the built structures are not likely to have a significant affect upon the European site but that they will be advising the Marine Consents Unit of DEFRA, who could be required to issue a dredging licence, that this element of the work has the potential to cause likely significant effect and would therefore require an appropriate assessment.

The Ecology Officer points out that it is the role of English Nature to advise the Planning Authority, as a competent authority, on the need for an appropriate assessment. Despite the view expressed by English Nature an appropriate assessment was carried out, which was confined to the impact of the built development and concluded that there will be no adverse effect upon the integrity.

Having considered the information presented with the planning application, English Nature advise that the built structures themselves are not likely to have a significant effect on estuary processes and important habitats upstream. Furthermore, the footprint of the development was not considered likely to have a significant effect on sub tidal features or sub features of the cSAC. English Nature indicated that, during construction of the built structures, there is the possibility of some short term disturbances to fish, although fish communities in general are not listed as a sub feature of the estuary physiographic feature, although they are recognised as part of the ecological system. They consider that it is unclear whether the short term construction impacts on a component of the estuaries European feature would warrant a significant effect on that feature and therefore required an appropriate assessment to be carried out.

The Authority is advised that capital and maintenance dredging are required for construction and use of the Squadron haven and such dredging is regulated by licence from the Marine Consents Unit of DEFRA. English Nature were satisfied that all necessary information to support such an appropriate assessment had been provided by the applicant. In addition to the impacts on the European designation, the appropriate assessment should also take into account effect on the physical processes that support the SSSI habitats further upstream. English Nature were satisfied that the appropriate assessment carried out by the Council’s Ecology Officer adequately addressed all relevant issues in this respect.

Environment Agency initially placed holding objection in respect of the proposal on basis that insufficient information had been submitted to assess the impact of the development on the interest features of the European designated site. The agency advised that they were unable to come to a conclusion regarding the principle of development in the absence of an appropriate assessment. Following consideration of the appropriate assessment prepared by the Council’s Ecology Officer, the agency withdrew their objection to the proposal.

English Heritage commented that the submitted drawings did not include a plan of the existing state of the esplanade which, at this point, forms a small battery around the Royal Yacht Squadron. In addition, they commented that there is also no historical analysis of the foreshore or any indication of the archaeological potential and while the proposal does not appear physically to affect features of much age or consequence, suggested that these issues were explored further.

Following discussions with English Heritage, the Council’s Planning Archaeologist advises that it will be necessary for the applicant to submit an appropriate desk based assessment prior to determination of the application identifying any potential archaeological interest in this area. A ‘swim over’ survey may be required post decision and prior to any work commencing on site.

The Council's Planning Archaeologist advises that the applicant has commissioned a full archeological desk based assessment of the proposed area. The interim report indicated the presence of 147 archaeological and wreck sites within the study area and anecdotal evidence that a World War II German aircraft lies close in shore at this point. The aircraft may be a war grave and will have statutory protection. It was also thought that at least one shipwreck site lie within the impact corridor and a slipway is recorded as being on the first edition OS maps, although it is unclear whether this will be impacted. The report also suggested that the presence of prehistoric archeological deposits in this area cannot be discounted. It has subsequently been established that both the aircraft and the shipwreck site referred to are not located within an area where they are likely to be affected by the proposed development.

The Planning Archaeologist advised that, should Members be minded to approve the application, consent should be subject to conditions, including a requirement for the applicant or their agents to implement a programme of archeological works, a requirement that, should archaeological deposits be encountered during development, all works must cease until the importance, date, nature and extent and state of preservation have been assessed and that, in the event that a war grave is encountered during investigation or construction works, all development should cease until such time as the War Graves Commission advises on appropriate measures.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

The Town Council supports in principle the proposal but expressed some reservations regarding the town pier element indicating that they would wish to see a more attractive Victorian design for the link span, confirmation that it would be a landing stage only with no overnight moorings and clarification regarding public access.

Copy of a letter from Cowes Town Council to the Cowes Harbour Commissioner has been received indicating that the Town Council support the proposal for the Squadron Haven and Parade Landing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The applications have attracted a total of 56 letters objecting to the proposal. Of these, 48 take the form of a standardised letter relating solely to the effect of the proposal on recreational fishing in the area. The grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Viewing area on Parade for public is already congested and extra services to support yacht crews, car parking and security would deny access to this area.

Impact on outlook to sea from Parade.

Parade is unique and important part of Cowes.

Other sites in area should be enhanced to realise the nautical tourism.

This facility is not required as adequate marina facilities are proposed as part of the Project Cowes initiative.

Provision of a proper pier should be made not a pontoon.

Increased noise, including sound of halyards, pollution and lack of parking will impact on amenities of nearby residents.

Project is not technically feasible.

Submission contains lack of information regarding public access to town pier and type of vessel able to use the facility.

Public landing stage could become gathering point for youngsters.

Development would prevent continued use of Parade by anglers which, in particular, provides easy access for children and people with disabilities.

Continued use of Parade for fishing and mooring of boats would create dangerous conflict.

Whilst short term/overnight mooring is considered to be acceptable, use by charter vessels and longer term mooring should not be permitted.

Security of town pier considered to be a major concern – should be locked at night and off peak with CCTV provided.

The combination of the haven and landing facility would be incongruous.

Arrivals and departures of vessels will increase at all times of day and night, increasing noise and disturbance to nearby residents.

Increased congestion at entrance of River Medina creating hazard.

In addition, concerns raised by individuals in respect of recreational angling, letter has been received from National Federation of Sea Anglers who, whist welcoming the proposal on basis that it will enhance Cowes waterfront with respect to yachting and tourism, raised a number of concerns with regard to impact of proposal on recreational angling, particularly from the area along The Parade. However, following discussions between the NFSA and RYS, a further letter has been received indicated that these discussions have resulted in an agreement and a way forward for recreational angling in the affected areas which may involve use of the breakwater and town pier by anglers.

Similarly, letter was received from the Royal London Yacht Club (RLYC) objecting to the application and expressing concern with regard to the impact of the proposal on various aspects of yacht racing in the area. However, it is understood that, following discussions between the RLYC, the RYS and Cowes Harbour Commissioner, these concerns have been overcome and the yacht club now withdrawn their objection to the application.

Subsequent to the preparation of the original report, further correspondence have been received in respect of this proposal and are detailed below:

Further letter of representation has been received from local resident, who has previously submitted comments in respect of proposal, indicating that, having viewed a copy of the document for the East Cowes Project, he is more convinced that there is no need for the facilities provided by this proposal. He is concerned about the likely impact of this proposal on the area and particularly Cowes Castle.

E-mail received from local resident who indicates that, whilst he has no problem with the pier or the Squadron development, as an angler he would not want to see row after row of pontoons added on after the initial development. He also raises issues regarding impact of development on recreational angling and, in particular, the ease of access afforded to children and anglers with disabilities by The Parade.

Letter received from Newport resident indicating that, whilst he does not object to the pier, which he considers would probably be an asset to the town, he is concerned that the marina off the Royal Yacht Squadron will block the outlook from approximately half the length of The Parade. Furthermore, he considers that this facility would take very few boats and of no great size and will not be of benefit to the town.

Letters have been received from Skandia Cowes, Cowes Yachting and Royal Corinthian Yacht Club supporting the application with comments which can be summarised as follows:

Haven whilst primarily for benefit to RYS members will be great assistance to all Cowes yacht and sailing clubs in the management of major events.

Public landing will provide much needed facilities.

Breakwater will provide shelter to the structure of The Parade.

Proposal will enhance harbour entrance and bring more events and visitors to Cowes to the benefit of the Island economy as a whole.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Following discussions with the Architectural Liaison Officer, there are considered to be no major crime and disorder implications associated with the proposal. In general, he considers that the proposal may raise issues of security for vessels and personal possessions although this could be addressed by restricting access to the haven in particular by means of a lockable gate. In general, he considers that some security devices should be provided such as CCTV. Whilst not strictly a crime and disorder matter, he expresses concern that public access to the town quay may result in accidents or people falling into the water placing pressure on police and other rescue services.

EVALUATION

Main issues relevant to the consideration of this proposal can be summarised as follows:

· Whether proposal is acceptable in principle.

· Impact of development on amenities and character of area, specifically the setting of the conservation area and the impact on the adjacent listed building.

· Impact on amenities of nearby residents.

· Impact on the European designation and wider ecological interests in the area.

The majority of the work would take place and resultant structures occupy the area beyond low water mark, outside the development envelope, as defined on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). However, the explanatory text in the UDP in respect of policies relating to general location of development indicates that they will be relevant to many development proposals and provide guidance to the locational constraints or issues which need to be taken into consideration. Other sections and policies of the plan will also need to be taken into consideration and may, in certain circumstances, support the principle of development outside the development envelope.

When considering whether proposal is acceptable in principle, it is necessary to take into account the locational constraints associated with the development under consideration and the need for the chosen location. In this instance, I am satisfied that the proposed development has an operational requirement dictating its location and that the proposal falls within a category of development may exceptionally be permitted. Therefore I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in principle.

From the information accompanying the submission, it is clear that the facilities to be provided, and particularly the haven, have been designed to satisfy an operational and functional requirement whilst minimising the impact of the development on the surrounding area and the adjacent Listed Building. The rock armour, placed on the seabed to form the outer face of the breakwater, would have finished height of 2.01 metres ordnance datum (OD), OD being the highest astronomical tide. The top of the wave break parapet to the breakwater would be at a height of 2.695 metres OD. To put these levels into context, they need to be compared with existing levels on The Parade. The report accompanying the submission indicates that the level of the parade pavement, opposite the Royal London Yacht Club, is 2.285 metres OD and that the balustrading has a height of 1.060 metres above this giving a height to the top of the balustrading of 3.345 metres OD. This balustrading is of substantial construction and is a dominant feature on The Parade. The top of the wave break parapet to the haven would sit approximately 650 mm below the top of the balustrading with only the turret on the outer end of the breakwater and the pedestrian link bridge projecting higher.

The breakwater has been designed to be over topped by waves, although it will provide safe mooring for vessels under fair to intermediate sea conditions i.e. below force 8. In order to limit the height and impact of the structure, it is not intended to provide public access to the breakwater and this would require a higher and wider structure with handrails, thereby increasing the impact of the development. Notwithstanding these issues, the facility will occupy a prominent location, clearly visible when viewed from both sea and land, and will create a sense of enclosure, impacting on the character of the area. However, whilst it is not disputed that the proposal will impact on the outlook to sea, the design concept for the scheme acknowledges the need to keep to a minimum such impacts. In addition, following discussions between the applicants’ agent and the Conservation and Design Team Leader, further plans have been submitted amending elements of the scheme in order that the development is more sympathetic in terms of existing features in the immediate vicinity, the character of the conservation area and setting of the adjacent listed building. In particular, the following alterations have been made to the scheme:

· A more simplified approach has been adopted for the tower at the outer end of the breakwater.

· The means of enclosure to the pedestrian access at the landward end of the haven has been altered to reflect existing features in the area.

· Balustrading is to be returned along either side of the access to the link span to the town pier to match that along The Parade.

Whilst the proposal will clearly have a degree of impact on the conservation area and the adjacent listed building, I consider that these alterations to the scheme result in a development which is more sympathetic to its surroundings. Given the function of the development and the character of the area, I do not consider that proposal would represent an incongruous feature or that the impacts are so significant so as to be unacceptable.

Existing development on the south western side of The Parade, opposite the site of the proposed development, includes residential properties. Concern has been expressed by residents within these properties regarding the possible disturbance that may be caused by the proposal. In this respect, I consider that potential sources of disturbance include the construction phase and the subsequent use of the completed facility.

In general terms, potential noise and nuisance generated during the construction phase of a development is not a matter which normally falls within the control of the Local Planning Authority. However, in this instance, given the nature of the operation involved and the volume of material required in the construction of the haven which could potentially be delivered both by road and by sea, I do not consider that it would be unreasonable for the authority to seek control, through conditions should Members be minded to approved the application, the hours of working and delivering of materials at the site.

A further potential source of noise and disturbance could arise through activities associated with the use of the facility. In this respect, I consider that the site is located in an area where there is a high level of waterborne activity, particularly at times when events are being held in the area. Such activities obviously generate a significant volume of waterborne movements, including launches ferrying people between vessels on off shore moorings and the land. It is also understand that there are a large number of ‘swinging’ moorings along the area of The Parade. The information accompanying the submission indicates that the haven would provide mooring facilities for launches operated by the Royal Yacht Squadron and the short term moorings for visiting craft, particularly during events, which would otherwise be moored at permanent facilities either on the Island or further a field. I am advised that the haven is not intended to provide long term/permanent mooring facilities for members’ vessels. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal would generate a significant increase in movement of vessels in this area or demand for a high level of car parking in the area. Having regards to these factors, I do not consider that level of activity generated by the proposal would have an excessive or unacceptable impact on the amenities of nearby residents.

The site is located within the Solent Marine cSAC and, in assessing this proposal, consideration has been given to the likely affect of the development upon the interest features of the designated area. The Council’s Ecology Officer has carried out an appropriate assessment in respect of this proposal in order to identify whether there is likely to be any significant effects arising from the development. The appropriate assessment identifies that the interest feature which would be directly affected by the plan is the estuary's physiographic feature and that the cSAC is sub tidal at the mouth of the Medina estuary which was included within the site boundary to protect estuary processes essential to important habitats upstream. Sub tidal sediment communities are a sub feature of the estuaries feature. Consequently, the Ecology Officer has identified these aspects as those which could be affected by the development. Having identified the special feature of the area and impacts likely to arise through the development, the Ecology Officer has concluded that none of the changes associated with the development on its own would give rise to adverse affects on the cSAC features and that construction should not represent an adverse affect on the integrity of the Solent Marine cSAC. In addition, in combination with other plans and projects, available information indicates that construction is unlikely to contribute to any adverse affects caused by other schemes. However, he advises that, although no adverse affects on the integrity of the designated area are predicted, a precautionary approach with regard to capital and maintenance dredging should be implemented. In this respect, it is understood that it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain a dredging licence from the Marine Consents and Environment Unit for the capital and subsequent maintenance dredging. It is further understood that the process will also include an assessment of the likely impacts of the development on the special features of the designated area.

Whilst navigation issues are not a material planning consideration, this matter has been taken into account by the Cowes Harbour Commissioner when submitting comments in respect of an application for a dredging licence. A copy of these comments has been obtained which indicates that, whilst the proposed haven will project approximately 65 metres into the western entrance of the harbour, it is clear of the main fairway and will, therefore, not cause an unacceptable obstruction to navigation. The Cowes Harbour Commissioner acknowledges that proposal will also affect the approaches to the various yacht club and Council owned parade landing steps, although it is understood that he has received no objections in respect of navigation issues or rights. Cowes Harbour Commission indicate that they would require both the Royal Yacht Squadron haven and landing pontoon to be lit, the minimum requirements for which would involve two vertical green lights on the southern end of the Royal Yacht Squadron breakwater and two vertical green lights on the southern end of the landing pontoon. I am satisfied that, should Members be minded to approve the application, the level of lighting to be provided to this facility can be adequately controlled by means of a condition of the planning permission.

Concern has been expressed about the use of these facilities for long term mooring of vessels and the effect this could have on nearby residents. The information which accompanies the submission indicates that is intended that these facilities are required for short term mooring of vessels. Furthermore, it is understood that the design of the haven would, to a certain extent, limit its use to short term mooring, particularly during very bad weather conditions (above force 8). In any event, I do not consider that overnight mooring of vessels at this location would have a significant or adverse impact on nearby residents or that any restrictive condition of a planning consent in this respect would be reasonable or enforceable.

I consider that the alterations to The Parade Landing (formerly referred to as the Town Pier) will result in a more substantial and more stable structure to which it would possible to berth a wide range of vessels, including the Waverley. Information which accompanied the revised plans has clarified the situation regarding public access to this facility. In this respect, I can confirm that there would be unrestricted public access to the fixed section of The Parade Landing facility, i.e. that section between The Parade itself and the linkspan bridge between the fixed element and the floating pontoons. Unrestricted access would also be available to the pier decks which would flank the fixed element, although the provision of these may be subject to the availability of additional funding.

The upper, fixed section, of The Parade Landing facility would provide a safe public promenade and viewing platform from which views over the adjoining Royal Yacht Squadron haven would be achievable. The statement from the Cowes Harbour Commission indicates that, in the interests of public safety, access to the floating pontoon landing would limited to members of the public requiring access for the purpose of joining or leaving vessels berthing at the landing facility. In addition, it is understood that ongoing discussions are taking place between the applicant, Cowes Harbour Commission and a representative of the National Federation of Sea Anglers which would, in principle, allow use of the facility for recreational angling at times that will not conflict with busy periods of marine use. I consider that the revised plans and additional information submitted by the applicant's agent clarifies the situation with regard to the use of and public access to The Parade Landing and that this facility will be of benefit to 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 the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to balanced with the right of the applicant to carry out the development in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I do not consider the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, with particular reference to the conservation area, or the setting of the adjacent listed building. Furthermore I do not consider that the use of these facilities and the level of activity likely to be generated by them would cause excessive or unacceptable impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by nearby residential occupiers. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the special features of the cSAC or the estuarine processes further south on the River Medina.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (Both applications) –

subject to referral of application for Listed Building Consent

to the Government Office.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The works hereby authorised shall be begun not later than [5] years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by s18 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Prior to work commencing on the partial demolition of the Royal Yacht Squadron steps, as detailed on the approved plans, details of the method of disposal of the resultant material together with details of the materials/surface finish to be used in making good the section of steps to be retained shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to protect the character and appearance of the listed building in accordance with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings), B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings), and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Strategic Policy S10 (Designated and Defined Areas) and Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), D14 (Light Spillage) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Reason: To reduce the opportunities for crime and to comply with Policy D11 (Crime and Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2 - That the applicant's agent is advised, in a letter accompanying the decision notice, that in the event that a war grave is encountered during the investigation or construction works, all development should cease until such time as the War Graves Commission advises on appropriate measures.

13.

TCP/25011/A P/00019/05 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 26/01/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. C. Hougham Tel: (01983) 823576

Applicant: S & A Court

Retention of dwelling as constructed (application to be determined by the Council's Development Control Committee)

Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410RA

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Members of this Committee will be very familiar with this site and the fact that it is a particularly contentious issue. Consequently, it was decided that this retrospective application should be determined by Members.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken less than seven weeks if it is determined at this meeting. The reason for processing this particular application quickly will become apparent in the latter part of this report.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This retrospective application relates to a virtually completed two/three storey dwellinghouse occupying a narrow plot on the north eastern side of Mill Road in Yarmouth.

This is a predominantly residential area characterised by a mixture of detached and semi detached dwellings constructed, for the most part, during the late Victorian period and before and just after the Great War.

The site is flanked by a scout hut and on the south eastern side by a small semi detached pair of houses with the immediate adjacent property of the pair, known as Moville, in close proximity to the new dwellinghouse which, by comparison, is disproportionately large particularly in terms of height when viewed from various vantage points in the immediate vicinity.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In July 2002 an application (TCP/25011 – P/01295/02) was submitted seeking detailed planning permission for the redevelopment of the site with a detached house. This involved the demolition of the existing style bungalow to be replaced with a narrow fronted two storey detached dwellinghouse.

The application was handled as an infill plot within an otherwise built-up frontage within the development envelope boundary and a decision was taken that the application should be approved on a conditional basis under delegated powers. On completion of consultations, with the local Ward Member and the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, a decision notice granting conditional planning permission was issued on the 9 January 2003.

The applicant notified the Council that demolition would commence on 12 February 2003 and the construction in connection with the replacement dwellinghouse would start later the same month.

In May 2003 questions were raised locally about the height of the partially constructed building in addition to other issues that related to the position of the replacement dwelling. Investigations were carried out and a report was considered by the Development Control Committee at a meeting held on 20 June 2003.

On the information available at that time Members resolved that the development was being constructed within acceptable tolerances of the approved plan but a letter should be sent to the applicant admonishing him for the submission of inaccurate plans misleading the owners/occupiers of the neighbouring property as well as other local residents, the local Town Council and officers involved with the case.

Notwithstanding the decision taken by the Committee, complainants maintained their objection, saying there were various factors that cumulatively meant that the resultant building under construction was significantly different from that shown on the approved plans. This eventually resulted in a site visit by the Development Control Manager who initiated a further investigation which involved an independent survey to check the position of the new dwelling in relation to the boundaries of the site and to also establish accurately the height of the building in relation to neighbouring properties; to further discuss with the applicant to establish how the partially constructed building was clearly significantly different from the approved drawings and an undertaking to the complainants that the matter would be reported back to this Committee.

Members considered the matter for a second time at a meeting held on 12 August 2003 when they considered a detailed report with a number of options. Members reached the following resolution (in part):

……, the view of the Council is that some kind of proportionate action is required to address the obvious discrepancies between the approved plans and the building currently under construction, that Members visit the site and that the Committee consider the matter in detail at the next full meeting. In the meantime, the developer architect should be strongly advised to cease work on site and all other interested parties should be advised about this decision.

At this time work ceased on site.

At a subsequent meeting with the applicant, the discussion concentrated on three specific points:

· The overall height of the building when compared with the approved drawings.

· Position/footprint of the building when compared with the approved drawings.

· Unauthorised amendments to the construction, design and design of the building, following the grant of permission when compared with the approved drawings.

The independent survey revealed that there was a discrepancy of up to 0.8 metre in height of the partially constructed building when compared with the approved drawings; there was a significant difference in terms of the overall width of the building to the lateral extremity of the eaves of 0.45 metre; the building had not been correctly positioned on the site; and there was a serious discrepancy in respect of the streetscene drawing in terms of both the height of the building and the representation of the neighbouring properties.*

* Straightforward interpretation of the latter point means that the difference in height depicted in the approved drawing between the proposed dwelling house and the neighbouring semi detached property was approximately 0.9 metre whereas the independent survey had reveal it was 1.8 metres.

A copy of an extract from the independent surveyors drawing, appended to this report, identifies the correct scale, size and height of the new building in relation to the neighbouring semi-detached pair of dwellings.

Members visited the site on 22 August 2003.

The matter was eventually reconsidered by the Development Control Committee in October 2003 where it was decided to serve an enforcement notice. However, prior to taking this decision Members were advised that following further survey work the notice should refer to a difference between the approved plan and the new building of 0.67 metre.

In accordance with best practice set out in PPG18, the enforcement notice was not immediately served but instead Officers embarked on a period of discussion and negotiations with the applicant and his consultant about the possibility of structural alterations to the partially completed building which may comply, at least in part, with the modifications required by the Committee avoiding the service of an enforcement notice and an almost inevitable appeal. It was also decided that it would be prudent to take advice from Counsel before committing the Council.

There were several exchanges of correspondence but no genuine attempt on the part of the applicant or his consultant to produce a resolution, or partial resolution, to this breach of planning control. It was at about this time that the applicant recommenced work on site and virtually completed the building.

In early June 2004 a letter was sent to the applicant’s consultant confirming that, in our view, he had failed to progress the matter sufficiently to avoid the service of an enforcement notice and that further correspondence could not be justified. There was a response from the applicant’s consultant but in a further letter he was advised that we would serve the notice.

As required the enforcement notice included a section which dealt with the reasons for issuing the notice where it was stated that the development was unacceptable for the following reason:

The building by reason of its size, design, appearance and position close to the boundary is an intrusive and unsightly addition, out of scale and character with surrounding dwellings and the scout hut to the north and has created conditions likely to result in a loss of outlook and visual amenity to the neighbouring residents/occupiers and is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and D2 (Standards for Development within the site) of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

An enforcement notice was served on the applicant (and his wife) requiring him to reduce the finished height of the building by 0.66 metre (not 0.67) so that the finished height level is no higher than 7.25 metres above ground floor/finished floor level so as to accord with the approved details in the planning permission. The time for compliance was six months after the notice took effect unless an appeal was submitted.

An appeal was lodged in late September 2004.

The matter was due to be heard at a local Inquiry in early February 2005 which had to be postponed because of a complication which, in practice, would have meant that the Inspector could not consider the deemed application. In response to a request from the appellant’s consultant, the Appeals Officer in consultation with the D C Manager, agreed to this delay since dealing with all the issues at a single inquiry would be likely to bring the matter to a quicker conclusion rather than the possibility of an appeal into the enforcement notice with an Inspector’s decision and a possible further appeal against refusal of planning permission on a subsequent retrospective application.

If the matter does proceed to appeal it is anticipated that it is likely to be heard during the second part of the year.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The appellant’s consultant has now submitted a retrospective application for the retention of the building as constructed supported by drawings prepared by his client, comprising:

· location plan

· block plan

· copy of the approved plan in a revised form agreed after the decision to grant permission

· detailed scaled drawing consisting of floor plans (ground and first only) and all four elevations of the completed building

· copies of two colour photographs showing the completed building in situ.

In a covering letter the consultant dealt with the specific point about the absence of a street scene plan, saying:

So far as the effect of the property on the streetscene is consider it is, of course, obvious that the building can be viewed in its present state. Since the building is almost complete a new street scene is unnecessary, especially in view of the difficulties of preparing an accurate drawing, bearing in mind that the applicant has no right to enter adjoining properties.

Members will note that the submitted detailed drawing shows the building to be a height of 7.910 metres from ground level to ridge whereas the approved drawing showed an overall height of 7.450 metres.

Consultant has not included a design statement with the application or any form of written justification as to why the Council, as Local Planning Authority, should now take a different view on the matter since the building has been virtually completed.

Photographs of the building will feature as part of the presentation by the Vase Officer at the meeting.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

In terms of national policy Members are referred to PPG3: Housing (2000) in the section dealing with Designing for Quality paragraph 56 states:

New housing development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context having regard not to just any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape of the wider locality. The local pattern of streets and spaces, building traditions, materials and ecology should all help to determine the character and identity of a development, recognising that new building technologies are capable of delivering acceptable built forms and may be m ore efficient.

Specific advice is given on Rejecting Poor Design in paragraph 63 which states:

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject poor design particularly where their decisions are supported by clear plan policies and adopted supplementary planning guidance, including village design statements. Applicants for planning permission for housing developments should be able to demonstrate how they have taken the need for good layout and design ……….

Policy G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Unitary Development Plan states, in part, in set criteria under (a), (e), (f) and (k).

Planning applications for new development will be permitted, providing they:

· harmonise with their surroundings, landscape or townscape by using appropriate scale, design and landscaping;

· are sympathetic to the character and materials of their surroundings;

· do not protrude above prominent ridges or sky lines;

· respect existing street and village patterns.

The explanatory text supporting this particular policy underlines that new development will be expected to maintain or positively contribute to the environment and to fit in with its surroundings.

Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding)

Policy D1 (Standards of Design) is clearly relevant to the determination of this particular retrospective application in terms of a number of criteria (a), (b), (c), (e), (g) and (h).

Development will be permitted only where it remains, or wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show good quality of design and should conform with the following criteria.

· respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

· be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

· of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses;

· provide adequate daylight, sun light and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses;

· do not constitute over development leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate space between properties;

· do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

The explanatory text supporting Policy D1 is also relevant to the determination of this application.

As new buildings have a significant effect on the character and quality of an area, all developments should be of a high standard of design. It should appear to be in context when viewed from the surrounding area and improve the quality of the existing environment. Good design can attract further investment, help promote sustainable development, and reinforce civic pride and sense of place. In applying the criteria in the above policy the Council will consider each case on its merits, whilst seeking to encourage innovation and distinctive approaches to design, especially those which reflect the character of the particular area.

Policy D2 (Standards for Development with the Site) under (a) states:

Development approved by the Council be required to create and interesting and attractive environment within the site by achieving a high standard of design and relating well to adjacent buildings.

The Policy H5 (Infill Development) is also material to the determination of this application.

Planning applications for infill residential development within development envelopes will only be approved where they will not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property and the surrounding area. Where, in the opinion of the Council, an infill development will lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the surrounding area, the application will be refused or will be required to appropriately modify.

The supporting commentary says there is a need to insure that town cramming does not lead to a loss of amenity for existing residents. It is important that over intensive development is not allowed to unduly affect the amenity of well established residential areas.

Recently approved Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on residential infill includes a number of key observations and specific guidance on the most appropriate way of achieving infill development within otherwise built up frontages without damaging the character of the area or having a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties. Paragraph 5.1 (in part) says:

…..Council will closely look at impact on neighbouring residents and will not allow development which is likely to have an adverse impact on their amenities. Special care must be taken to ensure that there is adequate space between new and existing dwellings to allow reasonable standards of daylight and prevent any loss of privacy or amenity from overlooking.

Guidance note raises two pertinent points which are obviously relevant to this particular application:

· Consider the amenities of neighbours likely to be affected. Proposal should not adversely affect their privacy or levels of daylight.

· Respect the architectural style or character of the locality in terms of the neighbouring property, building lines, architectural detail and materials.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends that certain conditions be imposed if Members were minded to approve the application.

Environment Agency confirm that they have no objection in principle but have asked that we should convey information to the applicant’s agent in connection with the risk of the site to tidal flooding.

AONB Officer has no comment to make on the application.

PARISH TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Yarmouth Town Council have placed a strong objection to the application on the following grounds.

· Not in keeping with the streetscene and area.

· If approved, this would set an undesirable precedent for applications of a similar nature.

· Overdevelopment of the site particularly in terms of height.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letters from five Mill Road residents make a number of points which can be summarised in the following terms:

· Completed building has a significant effect on neighbouring semi-detached villa resulting in loss of light and allegedly overhanging the curtilage of the neighbouring property.

· Substantially higher than older properties in the immediate vicinity and out of keeping with the character of the area.

· Completed building was not correctly positioned on the site which also has a detrimental effect on the amenities formally enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties.

· The retention of the building in its completed form would contravene the human rights of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Detailed of representations objecting to the retrospective application have been received from the owners of the neighbouring property (Moville). The letter focuses and concentrates mainly on the history of this particular development and expresses misgivings about some of the information provided by the applicant’s agent on the application form in connection with the application. they also comment in the following terms:

..........two photographs submitted in support of this application are taken from sympathetic angles and do not portray the true impact of the house in the street.......

We feel that the scale and mass of the new house is disproportionate and too long for the plot. Is out of keeping with the surrounding properties and detracts from the character of the area. We believe the property conflicts with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Due to its size and type of construction, the house stands out like a sore thumb and considering this is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is no enhancement to the area. On a personal note, this house oppressively dominates and overshaows out property.

The objectors make observations about the applicant’s decision to continue working on site and their fears that the (virtually) completed house is a reason why the applicant should not be made to comply with the enforcement notice, as he is claiming this is a disproportionate remedy.

EVALUATION

This has proved to be a particularly contentious matter since construction works were undertaken in May 2003.

In the early part of this report (See Relevant History) it has been explained that this retrospective submission has been brought about because of an oversight on the part of the applicant’s consultant in submitting an appeal against the enforcement notice which would have meant that the appointed Inspector would not have been able to consider the deemed application and consequently, even if the Council successfully defends the service of the enforcement notice, the matter was unlikely to be concluded at that time. The purpose of this retrospective application, if Members support the recommendation, will enable the applicant’s consultant to lodge an appeal against the planning decision which would be heard in conjunction with the appeal against the enforcement notice at a local Inquiry which now seems likely to be heard in the second part of this year.

Notwithstanding the information contained in the preceding paragraph, the decision to be taken in connection with this application, and the reasons for taking that decision, are extremely important and consequently it was decided that the decision should be taken by this Committee and that Members should have all available information before them in terms of an accurate presentation of the recent planning history of the site, a full analysis of relevant policy together with illustrative material to assist with the determination.

Prior to tackling the key issues and discussing the material considerations that will assist Members in the determination of the application it may be useful to summarise and consider the factual position.

· There was not a sustainable objection to granting permission for a replacement dwelling on this infill site.

· There was not a sustainable objection to granting permission for a two storey detached house on this site in accordance with the approved plans.

· The virtually completed building now on site is significantly different from the approved plans in a number of respects including the position in relation to the boundaries of the site and the neighbouring pair of semi detached houses, the external appearance of the building but most importantly the height in relation to the neighbouring properties.

· Following the resolution by this Committee to take enforcement action and subsequent negotiations with the applicant and his consultant, the applicant decided to virtually complete the building.

· In accordance with national guidance the officers used their best endeavours to resolve the breach of planning control (unsuccessfully) prior to serving the enforcement notice.

· Eventual service of the enforcement notice led almost inevitably to the lodging of an appeal.

· Enforcement action is considered to be proportionate particularly when due weight is given to other identified breaches in terms of the position of the building in relation to the site boundaries and the neighbouring properties and changes to the design/external appearance of the building.

· Although the applicant and his agent in submitting this application have the opportunity to have the matter considered, or re-considered, they have decided not to submit a written justification in support of the retention of the building in its completed form or provide an accurate streetscene or any other illustrative information other than paper copies of colour photographs of the building in situ.

Members of this Committee will be familiar with the site. If Members are not familiar with the (virtually) completed building they should try to visit before the meeting as a four week deferment would work against the timetable that has been agreed by the Appeals Officer and may further delay the local Inquiry and the eventual appeal decision, if it is decided to refuse permission.

Notwithstanding the detailed analysis of the chronology of events in connection with this development and the summary provided, Members should make a decision based on the merits of the case taking into account relevant local policies and other material considerations. The retrospective nature of the application is not a material consideration and should not prejudice Members deliberations in deciding whether permission should be granted or refused.

In terms of the “tests” that should be applied in reaching a decision, Members should focus initially on the development plan and particularly whether the (virtually) completed building satisfies the criteria of the policies set out in the earlier part of this report. While appreciating this matter has become particularly contentious, it is important to understand that the professional view is that there was not a sustainable objection to the redevelopment of this infill site with a suitably sized two storey detached house in accordance with the approved drawings with a degree of impact in the streetscene as indicated in the illustrative material supporting the application.

In the event, the building was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans and the supporting information (streetscene plan) proved to be seriously inaccurate and consequently misleading for all those with an interest in the application and those officers and Members responsible for making the decision.

In my opinion, officers have proved that the building is a substantially larger than the shown on the approved drawings and that the resulting situation in terms of the impact within the streetscene and particularly the effect on the small pair of neighbouring properties is that the only appropriate action available to the Council, as Local Planning Authority, was to serve an enforcement notice.

The reason for serving the enforcement notice is set out in the earlier part of this report (see Relevant History).

The submission of this retrospective application to retain the building in its (virtually) complete form has not deflected me from the view that in terms of scale, particularly the finished height, the building is so significantly out of keeping with the neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses and the general streetscene on this side of Mill Road that planning permission should be refused.

The building clearly dominates the much smaller neighbouring properties to such a degree that it not only has a detrimental effect on the character of the immediate locality but also seriously damages the integrity of the neighbouring buildings and harms the general level of amenity that the occupants of these properties previously enjoyed prior to the construction of this building. It is accepted that the Council approved a two storey house on this site and that there was likely to be some degree of impact on the occupants of the neighbouring properties, particularly the nearest semi detached property, but the failure of the applicant to construct a building in accordance with his own approved drawings has led to a situation whereby a (virtually) completed building is clearly out of scale and out of keeping with the character of the area to the extent that there is no alternative but to recommend refusal of permission.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report including the application of relevant policy and the current position in respect of the enforcement notice which was served several months ago, the view remains that there has been a significant breach of planning control that justified the service of an enforcement notice and that the retrospective application for the retention of the (virtually) completed building now before Members fails to persuade Officers that the Council should be deflected from the stance taken maintaining the view that the retention of this overly sized building in this location should be resisted.

RECOMMENDATION – Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The building by reason of its size, design, appearance and position close to the boundary, is an intrusive and unsightly addition, out of scale and character with the immediate locality creating conditions which damage the visual integrity of the area and also have a damaging affect on the level of amenity previously enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development with the site), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and H5 (Infill Development ) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

14.

TCP/25830/A P/01992/04 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone

Registration Date: 20/09/2004 - Development by Council Itself (Reg 3)

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: A J Flower BSc Dip FRICS

New entrance porch with canopy; change of use of conference room to office accommodation; alterations to upgrade and refurbish facilities; additional car parking area (Application will be determined by Development Control Committee)

Westridge Centre, Brading Road, Ryde, PO331QS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application involves Council owned land and raises policy issues which require determination by Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application if determined at this meeting will have taken 17 weeks to process, the delay being due principally due to workload and need for further consultations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former leisure centre located at Westridge to rear (east) of Tesco retail store fronting Brading Road.

Premises currently used as indoor water feature attraction, Local Authority offices and distribution facility together with squash courts and changing room facilities. Former swimming pool/restaurant area and conference room above remain unused.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Alterations and provision of Distribution Centre approved in 1997.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Applicant seeks to retain existing water leisure attraction in central section of building whilst converting existing storage and male changing rooms into health clinic and health suite. Both existing changing rooms would be refurbished and of eight existing squash courts one court would be reinstated and loss of three courts would provide additional floor space areas for provision of health and fitness suite and provision of dedicated reception area and entrance porch to leisure facilities. Other principle alteration would involve change of use of first floor (unused) conference floor into additional office accommodation for Isle of Wight Tourism. This additional office accommodation would adjoin existing local authority offices.

Although not part of current application proposed plans indicate that former restaurant area will remain as potential leisure outlet involving either alternative tourism use or casino facility.

Apart from new entrance porch to leisure facility there are no other significant alterations to external fabric of existing building.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Both premises and adjoining land identified as Tourist Development Area within adopted Unitary Development Plan. Site specifically identified in Unitary Development Plan as positively promoting tourism uses (Policy T7d).

Development brief contained within Appendix H of Unitary Development Plan states that any future development should ideally be of a recreational nature and should include both indoor and outdoor facilities. However consideration needs to be given to the adjoining employment allocation and the issues of access associated with such a use. Site lies outside designated development envelope for Ryde and following policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant in this case:

S1 - New Development to be Concentrated within Existing Urban Areas

S4 - The countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development

S5 - Proposals for Development which on balance will be for the Overall Benefit of the Island will be Approved

G1 - Development Envelope

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlement

T1 - Promotion of Tourism

T2 - Tourist Related Development

T7 - Site Suitable for Tourist Related Development

U1 - Location of Health, Social, Community, Religious and Education Services

U3 - Appropriate Location of Education, Community, Social, Health and Welfare Facilities and Promotion of Sharing and Dual Use

L2 - Formal Recreation Provision

L3 - Indoor Sports Facilities

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has requested additional information in respect of car parking provision. Information has been supplied and formal response is awaited.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

In support applicant (Property Services) advises that Westridge Centre was originally constructed as swimming pool and squash complex as part of planning gain in connection with Tesco out of town store. Originally privately run complex was purchased by Council.

Since purchase swimming pool has been converted into tourist attraction known as Waltzing Waters which is privately run with much remainder of building occupied by Local Authority providing squash courts and office accommodation for Isle of Wight Tourism. Some areas however remain vacant/unused including former restraint area and some of the ground floor rooms.

Several sections occupied are under utilised particularly in respect of conference room at first floor level which has had no public bookings for approximately three years and is currently used on an ad hoc basic for a limited number of meetings and as temporary storage facility.

Leisure facility run by Council comprises squash courts and adjacent vacant areas and again accommodation is under utilised and in need of refurbishment.

Proposals contained within this application include construction of new self contained DDA compliant entrance to leisure facility, conversion of one squash court into reception lounge/bar area and further two squash courts into state of the art gym facility. Remaining squash courts will be refurbished. Also proposed is full refurbishment of changing facilities, creation of health suite and additionally health and alternative therapy clinic which will be privately operated. Finally proposal involves change of use of under utilised conference room to Council offices to be occupied by Wight Leisure.

Proposal will extend leisure facilities available thereby meeting an identified community need and also existing in addressing issues of capacity at the existing gymnasiums at The Heights and Medina Leisure Centre. It also represents the only fully inclusive fitness initiative on the island.

New leisure facility will create five full time equivalent jobs. Only non leisure element forming part of this application is proposed change of use of under utilised conference room for offices to be occupied by Wight Leisure. This accommodation forms only 6.6% of the total floor area of the building and will enable Wight Leisure to co-locate with Isle of Wight Tourism. Conference Room is at first floor level sited adjacent to existing office accommodation and as such its use is unlikely to be perceived by general public as being different to that at present. Finally proposal seeks to make use of former outdoor pool area which now lies empty and derelict into staff car parking area thus reusing this vacant space whilst leaving main car park available for visiting public.

In Policy terms whilst premises is located within Tourist Development Area where tourism uses will be acceptable in principle it is important to note that Centre is currently operating as leisure and sports facility together with Local Authority offices and distribution facilities with other areas remaining unused.

Clearly that part of proposal which involves refurbishment and upgrading and provision of alternative leisure and health facilities is welcomed and supported by specific policy allocation for this site.

Part of the proposal involving loss of conference room facility to additional office floor space is in itself contrary to Unitary Development Policy however point should be made that floor space of user represents small percentage of overall usage of building and would through relocation improve administrative functions of Local Authority particularly in respect of provision of leisure facilities on an island wide basis.

Furthermore location of additional office facility at first floor level adjoining existing office accommodation would not compromise activity of remainder of building for leisure use and is considered proposal should be supported in enhancing existing leisure facilities thereby ensuring its continued viability.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that proposal whilst in part represents departure albeit relatively small in terms of floor space from specific policy in Unitary Development Plan proposal represents opportunity to improve leisure and health facility at this established location and therefore on balance proposal is recommended for approval.

This application has been advertised as a departure from Development Plan. In the circumstances as the proposal involves Council owned land if the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve the proposal the application needs to be referred to appropriate government office.

In these circumstances it is recommended that Government Office for the South East be advised that the Council is minded to approve this application subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (SUBJECT TO REFERRAL TO GOSE)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the entrance porch hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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.

15.

TCP/26549/B P/02513/04 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland

Registration Date: 01/12/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Needles Park

Retention of storage building linked to 'Junior Driver' attraction

Needles Pleasure Park, Alum Bay, Totland Bay, Isle Of Wight, PO390JD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

When consulted under the Delegation Procedure the Local Member, Councillor Mr Howe requested that the application is considered by the Committee as he raised concern over the adverse impact of the building on the rural character of the area and its location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which he considered out of keeping with such a location.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken fifteen weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to Case Officer workload and the request from the Local Member for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Needles Park lies within some of the most important and sensitive environments on the Isle of Wight. The whole area falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Tennyson Heritage Coast, both part of the national family of protected landscapes. The site is also adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and in close proximity to a candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSaC).

The building is located at the far northern point of the Needles Park and is immediately adjacent a recently approved Junior Driver Track attraction. The north and western boundaries are well screened by Tamarisk and other native shrubs. To the east is the bulk of the park with the chair lift to the north east, a landmark feature of the park.

The Junior Driver Track is a 240 metre long course, occupying an area approximately 30 metres by 17 metres, and is fully representative of an urban environment and features pedestrian crossing, traffic lights, give way signs, two way traffic flows and a bus stop. At present there are eleven electrically powered vehicles for children to drive.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19498/X - Planning permission granted March 2004 for excavation works to form 'Junior Driver' roadway driving track to include safety barriers to perimeter.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the retention of a single storey building linked to the "Junior Driver" attraction. This storage building is 15 metres long, 3.9 metres deep with a frontage height of 2.45 metres and 2.1 metres to the rear. The front elevation, which had previously been decorated with a street facade, is now painted dark green, all lettering and decorative features having been removed. The applicant advises that this unit is essential to store the electric cars, signs and loose items to prevent vandalism and theft for the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site is located outside the Development Envelope, as defined on the Unitary Development Plan, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast and is adjacent an SSSI and in close proximity to a cSaC. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development

S6 - All Development will be Expected to be of a High Standard of Design

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within The Site

D3 - Landscaping

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and Extension of The Season

T2 - Tourism Related Development (Other than Accommodation)

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C4 - Heritage Coast

C8 - Nature Conservation as Material Consideration

C9 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation

C10 - Site of National Importance for Nature Conservation

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Developments

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

English Nature request that the developer enters into a Section 106 Agreement to completely remove the development prior to it falling onto the beach as a result of cliff erosion in order to avoid the risk of the development interfacing with coastal processes.

AONB Officer welcomes the applicant’s recognition of the visual impact of the site on the surrounding area and advises that with sufficient care and management, native maritime environment plants forming part of the landscaping scheme should be able to flourish. He indicates that, subject to conditions covering landscaping, the painting and maintenance of the building, no objection is raised to this application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCILS COMMENTS

Totland Parish Council object to this proposal as they consider its size and location is obtrusive and has a detrimental visual impact on the scenery of the Heritage Coast.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection received from a local resident who considers proposal is completely wrong for the area, the building is a monstrosity which is visible from within the park, West High Down and Headon Warren.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application is whether retention of this storage building is acceptable in principle and whether it has an unacceptable impact on the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation.

This application forms part of a general five year plan to improve the site amenities carried out in negotiations with the AONB Officer.

The 'Junior Driver Course' was previously approved on the basis that it would occupy an existing tarmac surface which was a redundant area, previously occupied by a children's Dragon Ride (mini roller coaster) which was in a poor state of repair. As proposal did not create new development within the existing theme park it was considered acceptable and did not conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan. The 'Junior Driver Course' is part of a community educational marketing initiative whereby the Needles Park works with all primary and intermediate schools on the island to establish a learning facility for road safety. The facility is currently open exclusively for local schools at specific times during the winter months.

Concerns have been raised in respect of development of this land, which forms part of an actively eroding and slumping cliff, and would not be sustainable without future coastal protection and cliff stablisation. However, PPG14 (Development of Unstable Land) states "the responsibility of determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests primarily with the developer". The developer should therefore make a thorough investigation on the assessment of the ground to ensure it is stable or that any actual or potential instability can be overcome by appropriate remedial, preventative or precautionary measures".

Following negotiations the storage building has been painted dark green to enable it to blend in with the dense Tamarisk growth to the rear. In addition to this, further constructive discussions have taken place between the Needles Park management, Development Control Officers and the AONB Officer to incorporate additional planting in areas such as the crossways within the main car park area to further obscure the storage building when viewed from higher ground. This forms part of the application and will be controlled by condition, should Members be minded to approve the application.

With regard to English Nature's comments I do not consider that a Section 106 is appropriate in this instance to ensure removal of the development prior to it falling onto the beach. A condition controlling this would be far more effective and would provide the same amount of control.

A local resident voiced concern on the proposal being completely wrong for such an area, as it is highly visible. However, Members will note that building is in an area that had previously been developed as a child roller coaster ride and following consultation with the AONB Officer the development in this area is not considered to be inappropriate.

I am of the opinion that the building does not have a significant or unacceptable impact of the AONB or Heritage Coast and would not have an adverse impact on features of ecological importance. I am satisfied that proposal does not have a significant or adverse impact to the detriment of the character of the area and does not conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the provision of this building represents acceptable development and does not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality or has a excessive impact on the environment. In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The storage building hereby approved shall be solely used in connection with the 'Junior Driver' attraction and for no other purposes unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Within one month of the date of this decision notice details of soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Within one month of the date of this decision notice a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved design and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

In the event of any threat of the building hereby approved collapsing onto the foreshore as a result of coastal erosion or through any other natural processes, the building, including foundation materials, shall permanently removed from the area as soon as reasonable practicable and disposed of in a manner to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the coastal processes are not interfered with, in the interests of nature conservation and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The walls of the storage building hereby approved shall be painted in a drab dark green colour, to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

16.

TCP/26556/A P/02688/04 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 11/01/2005 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854

Applicant: Mr J Snow

Demolition of garage; construction of end of terrace house; formation of vehicular access

land adjacent 1, Gordon Close, Ryde, PO333RB

REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Local Member Councillor Fox has asked the application to go before the Development Control Committee as he suggests the proposal is inappropriate, being deemed to be overdevelopment of the site which shall also lead to a loss of the existing parking provision. He also suggests that it capitalises on a previous decision taken under delegated powers at 106 Binstead Lodge Road, being deemed to be in an inappropriate position for a similar development.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken nine weeks to date, due to the report being determined by this Development Control Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This is a residential area with varying architectural style, character and appearance. There is a mix of terraced, semi detached and detached properties in the area, predominantly being two storey in appearance and are arranged in either a linear form following existing roads or formed within smaller cul-de-sacs.

The site is accessed off Cemetery Road which in turn leads into Gordon Close which is a cul-de-sac, housing a number of dwellings of a moderate proportion and size. The heights of buildings fluctuate with the natural topography of the land in an east west direction off Cemetery Road, leaving Cemetery Road at a higher elevation than that of Gordon Close.

The site in question belongs to Number 1 Gordon Close which forms part of a semi detached pair of properties within Gordon Close. This site is on the corner of Cemetery Road and Gordon Close and is currently used for the siting of an attached garage and part open space. The site is divided from the main road by a grass bank and 1.8 metre Larch Lap fence which forms the boundary to the site. The flat roof attached garage is approximately the same height as Cemetery Road due to the natural gradient and slope of Gordon Close.

A public footpath runs along Cemetery Road along the boundary of the site leading into Gordon Close and is sub divided either by bollards or a raised kerb. The rear garden of the site faces the side elevation of a terraced row of houses called Stoneham Cottages that visually seem to be period properties constructed of natural stone and slate. The north gable of No 1 Stoneham Cottages forces the site, but has no windows within this elevation except for a small conservatory at ground floor level. Binstead Cemetery is located to the east of the site being on the opposite side of Cemetery Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/26556 - Demolition of garage; proposed end of terrace house and vehicular access.

Application refused in October 2004 under delegated procedure due to the significant loss of space about the building to the detriment of visual amenities and spatial characteristics of the street scene, while removing the valuable contribution the space makes to the apparent density leading to a cramped appearance to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought for the demolition of a garage and the construction of an end of terraced house with new vehicular access.

The house is proposed to be attached to the end of number one Gordon Close extending 4.1 metres off the gable elevation of the existing property, therefore leaving 3.6 metres to the boundary of the site. A small 0.5 metre extension to the dwelling is also proposed, providing an entrance doorway for the house. The proposal is stepped down off the main ridge and stepped back off the building line with the intention of making the proposal read as an extension, to 1 Gordon Close.

The finished floor level of the property will match that of the host property, requiring the property to be dug into the existing earth bank. The proposal aims to match the materials of existing properties within the area while the rear garden is sub divided equally creating an approximate 45 metre squared garden. The dwelling will accommodate two bedrooms located at the first floor having windows facing front and back. The remaining glazed areas on the rear elevation will be at ground floor level, being a small window and patio doors serving the kitchen/breakfast area. The majority of windows will be on the east elevation facing Cemetery Road and Binstead Cemetery. The ground floor window and door will be screened by the earth bank or boundary belonging to this property. Two windows will be placed on the front elevation serving a bedroom and the lounge. A new hardstanding will be provided outside number 1 Gordon Close enabling them to retain an off site parking allocation while the existing driveway will be used for the proposal.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are to considered to be as follows:

S1 - Development within Existing Urban Centres

S6 - Standards of Design

S7 - Meeting Housing Stock of Plan Period

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns

G4 - General Locational Criteria

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards of Design within the Development Site

H1 - New Development within Main Island Towns

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways recommend approval subject to conditions

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application has attracted one letter of objection and that can be summarised as follows:

· Reduction in available car parking spaces with a net increase in on street parking creating congestion and difficulty for emergency vehicles entering Gordon Close.

· The building will affect visibility along Cemetery Road.

· Increase hazard to pedestrians.

· Over development of the site.

· Creation of a small house prejudicing the local amenities, being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development.

· Proposal is forward of building line.

· Overlooking onto Stoneham Cottages

· Property too close to Cemetery Road, undermining the stability of the road

· Plans are incorrect as the tree within the rear garden of the site is larger than that depicted on plan.

· Increase in levels of ambient noise.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated with this application

EVALUATION

The planning application that was refused under Delegated Procedures was deemed to be too large for the site, prejudicing the spatial characteristics and importance the space made to the apparent density and building line of the area.

This application has significantly reduced the footprint, scale and mass of the proposal which is now deemed to be acceptable in this location. I would draw Members attention to No. 2 Gordon Close which has a similar size side extension ancillary to the dwelling house. Although the application is slightly larger than the extension to No. 2 the proposal would read as an extension to No.1.

The main reasons for refusal on the previous application, was the proposal spoilt the spatial characteristics and sight line when looking in a northerly direction down Cemetery Road. The application was too close to the boundary, therefore stopping an views down Cemetery Road and the apparent building line. The current application maintains this vista, creating a line of sight along Cemetery Road and the buildings relating to it. This is due to a reduction of around 1.2 metres off the side elevation.

The building itself will read as an extension and will not affect the character, setting or prevailing pattern of development within the area as it is sympathetic in materials, style and position to other buildings in the area. Third party representation has indicated there will be overlooking onto Stoneham Cottages, but on review of the plans Members will note that the rear windows will not directly face the side and front of No. 1 Stoneham Cottage. Due to the level of windows and position this building has within the street scene, there will be no unreasonable level of overlooking or loss of privacy in comparison to the existing situation. The side elevation that faces Cemetery Road and Binstead Cemetery has no visual implication to the localised amenity, as the design of the unit is sympathetic to the localised vernacular. The front elevation that faces Gordon Close measures approximately 50 metres to adjacent properties. There will be no loss of amenity to these properties given distances involved.

No. 1 will have reduced outside amenity space, but this will simply match that of existing properties within the area and in particular No. 4 Gordon Close which has a similar size garden. The level of outside amenity space for the existing and potential occupiers of the site is deemed to be adequate for the size of dwelling without prejudicing the long term sustainability and enjoyment of these occupiers.

Members will note that Highways recommend approval subject to conditions as they believe there will be no impact to the highway or people using it. It has been noted by representation that the availability of parking within the area will be reduced, but the site does offer one additional off street parking space. There is an additional off street parking space provided at No 1, which is located further within the site making it highly visible to pedestrian users, reducing the potential danger to them.

It has been suggested that by reason of the proposals proximity to Cemetery Road the construction could undermine the stability of it, but this is a Building Regulations matter. It is also suggested that the plans are incorrect with the tree in the rear garden being depicted smaller than actual size, while the building line is depicted wrongly on the plans. It has been confirmed with the architect that all plans are correct and precise and so if Members should decide to grant permission on this application the details indicated on the plan will be constructed accurately on site. With relation to the tree it is of no merit not being worthy of protection.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the construction of an end of terrace house and formation of vehicular access will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities or character of the locality. In this regard the proposed development would comply with relevant Unitary Development Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10

2	Matching materials - S01

3	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02

4	Visibility and sight lines - J20

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services