PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/26527

Brighstone Landscaping Ltd. against refusal of outline for siting of mobile home for security purposes, land at Clamerkin Business Park, Newtown.

 

 

TCP/17628/D

Mr C Reynolds against refusal of outline for a dwelling, land adjacent and rear of 146 Gunville Road, Newport.

 

 

TCP/25191/F

Mrs S Hicky against refusal for the erection of a multi-purpose agricultural building at Durrant Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield.

 

 

TCP/19749/B

Mr Newnham against refusal for two ground floor extensions and single storey extension to provide additional living accommodation at 2 Bettesworth Road, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/23550/B

Mr and Mrs Spencer against refusal for chalet bungalow with parking area and alterations to vehicular access, land adjacent 106 Pallance Road, Cowes.

 

 

TCP/223/A

Mr R Cooper against refusal for demolition of greenhouse and outline for a dwelling on land adjacent 3 Oakfield Road, East Cowes.

 

 

TCP/13102/S

Mr N Drysdale against refusal for bungalow, land adjacent 47 Melville Street, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/11503/F

Mr J Smith against refusal for vehicular access and hardstanding at 17 Star Street, Ryde.

 

 

E/10471/F

Mrs Hall against Enforcement Notice relating to the erection of wind break netting, wires and supporting posts at Timber, Undercliffe Drive, St. Lawrence, Ventnor.

 

 

TCP/12116/E

Mr and Mrs Woodford against refusal for single storey rear extension to form additional living accommodation at Little Kitbridge Farm, Forest Road, Newport.

 

 

TCP/26039/B

Mr M Cave against refusal for a pair of semi-detached houses with access and lay-by parking, land rear of 91 and 93 Elm Grove, Newport.

 

 

TCP/13041/A

Miss P A Stewart against refusal for retention of boundary fence at 11 Castle Court, Ventnor.

 

 

TCP/18176/D

Mr & Mrs G Hall against refusal for proposed roof terrace with balustrading at 1 and 2 Shooters Hill, Cowes.

 

 

TCP/11271/E

Mr W Kent against refusal for outline for dwelling, land adjacent Providence Cottage, Whiteley Bank, Ventnor.

 

 

TCP/26587

Mr M Ward against refusal for domestic wind turbine at Hog Down Bottom, Chale Street, Chale.

 

 

TCP/26702

Mr T Payne against refusal for the formation of vehicular access and hardstanding at 59 Castle Road, Newport.

 

 

TCP/26397/A

Mr and Mrs J Potticary against refusal for alterations and external staircase on rear elevation with balustrading and screening to form roof terrace at first floor level, 10 Fernside Way, Wootton.

 

 

TCP/25666/E

Mr R Saunders against refusal for vehicular access and hardstanding at Flora Cottage, Morton Road, Brading.

 

 

2.

 

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

No new dates to report.

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

 

NOTE: The Planning Inspectorate is introducing a new format to its appeal decision letters and is dispensing with the separate section listing the main issues of the case. Some of the following appeal decisions are in the new format.

 

 

 

 

 

(a)

 

TCP/10249/D

 

Mr T Blackman against refusal for detached house (revised scheme) on land adjacent Bridge Mead, New Road, Wootton Bridge.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 14 June 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 9 December 2004.

 

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the proposed development would provide reasonable living conditions for occupiers and neighbours particularly in relation to privacy, outlook, daylight, sunlight and outdoor amenity space.

·         The impact of the proposed development on the street scene.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          The proposed house would be unduly dominant and overbearing and reduce the daylight available to neighbouring occupiers.

·          The small rear garden would be overlooked and overlooking from the new dwelling of neighbouring properties would occur.

·          The proposed dwelling whilst not out of keeping with its neighbours in terms of design would appear cramped.

·          The development would be harmful to the street scene.

·          The development would be contrary to policies D1 and H5.

 

 

 

 

(b)

E/2817/S

Island Securities Ltd. against Enforcement Notice relating to the construction of the building at 37 Pyle Street, Newport not in accordance with the approved plans.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Enforcement action to introduce rendered finish and removal of low brick wall.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Enforcement action – 25 November 2003. 

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 15 December 2004. 

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether there is a breach of planning control.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·           There is no evidence to contradict the Council’s evidence that the plans showing the change in detail have never been approved either for Planning or Building Regulation purposes.

·          As a matter of fact and degree, at the time that the Notice was issued, the building did not accord with the original plans or any other plans later approved.

 

 

 

(c)

TCP/26225

Mr E D Prime against refusal for the conversion of room into an integral garage and the construction of a vehicular access at 51 Bernard Road, Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 30 April 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 20 December 2004. 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The proposal would involve the creation of an access within a few metres of a mini roundabout junction.

·          A car would have to reverse in or out of the proposed garage and such a manoeuvre this close to the roundabout would be hazardous.

·          The development would have an adverse effect on highway safety and be contrary to TR7.

·          The introduction of a garage projecting forward of the existing front elevation would appear out of keeping with the predominant character of the road.

·          The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to policies S1, D1 and H7.

 

 

 

(d)

TCP/9667/U

Mr and Mrs L Gustar against refusal for demolition of factory building and outline for residential development at Hosiden Besson, Binstead Road, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal – 23 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 20 December 2004.

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether the proposal would involve the unacceptable loss of existing employment land.

·          The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The proposal involves the relocation of a non conforming use from the site.

·         The site is now surrounded by residential development.

·         The previous use of the site has ceased and it could now be used for employment purposes in ways that would not be harmful to neighbouring residential occupiers.

·         There is no evidence which is sufficiently conclusive to indicate that no employment use could viably take place.

·         The proposal would involve the unacceptable loss of employment land and would be contrary to policy E3.

·         The required visibility of 90 metres cannot be achieved in a westerly direction.

·         In the absence of any conclusive evidence that the proposed traffic generation would not be materially larger than the previous use, the visibility is considered to be inadequate.

 

 

 

(e)

TCP/4308/C

Mr and Mrs D Atkinson against refusal of outline for five bungalows and garages and the formation of an access road on land west of Westway, Northwood, Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 12 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 20 December 2004.

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The appeal site has a different and less developed character when compared to the remainder of the rear gardens of numbers 31 and 33 Pallance Road to the north.

·         The proposal would appear as an intrusion of built form into an open area that has the character of countryside and would conflict with the Unitary Development Plan.

·         The proposed access road would pass underneath the substantial canopies of the line of mature oaks along the eastern boundary.

·         Two of these oaks would need to be felled and the access road would risk harming the roots of the remaining trees.

·         The trees contribute significantly to the rural character of the site and the wider area.

·         The proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies.

 

 

 

(f)

TCP/9272/H

Mr G Roberts against refusal for the continued siting of a mobile home at Victoria Lodge, Castlehaven Lane, Niton Undercliff.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 16 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed – 22 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         Measures have been taken to minimise artificially induced ground water and prevent any addition to ground instability.

·         The proposal does not amount to a one to one replacement of the existing house.

·         An application for a one to one replacement would be dealt with on its merits following an assessment of whether the coastal works have stabilised the site sufficiently to build a new dwelling.

·         The caravan, whilst not a desirable permanent addition to the area, is located in an unobtrusive position previously occupied by buildings.

·         Siting has a limited impact on the AONB.

·         Temporary planning permission of three years would allow the effects of the coastal protection works to be assessed.

·         The caravan and its associated fixtures should be removed on or before the expiration of that time.

 

 

 

(g)

TCP/25862/B

Mr M Watson against refusal for the retention of a front boundary fence on land at 89 Alvington Manor View, Carisbrooke.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 20 April 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 22 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The site occupies a corner location on an open plan residential estate.

·         The fence has an alien appearance on this open plan development and detracts from the open character and appearance of the street scene.

·         Retention of the fence is contrary to policies G4, D1 and D4.

 

 

 

(h)

TCPL/22131/D & LBC/22131/E

Mr G Collins against refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for a one/two storey extension to form annexed accommodation at 3 John Street, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal (both applications).

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) (both applications) – 8 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed (both appeals) – 22 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The proposed extension would unbalance the simplicity of the existing front elevation.

·         The proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of both the listed building and the surrounding conservation area.

·         The development would be contrary to policies S10, B1, B6 and D1,

 

 

 

(i)

TCP/2697/C

Mr and Mrs J Garnam against refusal for change of use from retail to additional living accommodation in connection with existing dwelling, at 41 High Street, Bembridge.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal – 3 August 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed – 22 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The unit is only a single room within the dwelling.

·         The floor space is less than 20 m2 and accounts for less than 1.5% of retail floor space in the village centre.

·         The unit has no separate storage space, toilet or washing facilities and is heated via the dwelling’s own system.

·         The provision of services necessary to convert the unit into a self contained shop would take up a significant part of the available floor space and adversely impact on its viability.

·         The unit is not self contained, was in retail use for less than 4 years and did not provide a vital local function.

·         Its loss will have an insignificant effect on the vitality and viability of the thriving shopping centre in Bembridge.

·         The proposal would not conflict with the aims of R2.

·         The building works required would have little impact on the appearance of the area.

·         The use should be limited to accommodation ancillary to the dwelling as the relationship of the unit to the rest of the house would not make it suitable for independent residential use.

 

 

 

(j)

TCP/9578/A

Mr P Miskin against refusal for the demolition of an outbuilding and the construction of a single/two storey extension to form annexed accommodation at Ivy Cottage, Station Road, Ningwood.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 30 April 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 23 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The proposal would almost double the size of existing cottage.

·         The extension would have the appearance of two small linked houses.

·         The proposal would change the character of the existing modest rural cottage into a structure that would appear as a large urbanised development.

·         The development would not only be detrimental to the character of the existing cottage but also the wider rural area and be contrary to D1, G1, G4 and H7.

·         The personal circumstances of the appellant does not outweigh the more general planning considerations.

 

 

 

(k)

TCP/20290/A

Mr J Tellick against refusal for the demolition of a wooden chalet and outline for a chalet bungalow and alterations to vehicular access on land rear of Homecroft, Cranmore Avenue, Cranmore.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 26 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 23 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The site is in the open countryside where residential development, other than exceptions set out in H9, is generally resisted.

·         H9a allows replacement dwellings but the timber chalet is not considered to be a residential property.

·         The proposal does not constitute infilling.

·         The proposal would be an intensification of development in the open countryside and detrimental to the rural character, the AONB and contrary to UDP policy objectives.

 

 

 

(l)

TCP/3163/E

Mr J Woolfenden against refusal for the removal of planning condition which prevents sale of take away hot food from 7 Church Street, Ventnor.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 24 May 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 23 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The site is close to a traffic light controlled junction with double yellow lines on both sides of the road.

·         On street parking is some distance from the premises.

·         Access to private parking to the rear is not readily apparent.

·         Customers are likely to try to park as close as possible to the premises.

·         Parking on a classified road close to traffic lights would be detrimental to highway safety and the freeflow of traffic and contrary to TR7.

 

 

 

(m)

TCP/26115

Mr Lloyd against refusal for the demolition of a garage and outline for a dwelling and hardstanding and alterations to vehicular access on land between 12 and 14 Brook Road, Shanklin.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 8 April 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 23 December 2004.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The proposal would have a very cramped appearance compared to other houses in this part of the road and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

·         Provision of parking spaces to both the existing property and proposed dwelling would require the new building to be set behind the general building line or extremely close to one or other of the flanking properties.

·         Such arrangement would be out of keeping with the area.

·         The narrowness of the plot would mean any dwelling would be deep and thin.

·         The proximity of the secondary windows of the existing dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the outlook and be unacceptably overbearing.

·         Any house on this site would be contrary to policy H5 that seeks to preserve the amenities of neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

(n)

TCP/15752/W

Island View Holidays against planning conditions imposed on planning permission for two replacement semi-detached holiday bungalows at Island View, Fort Warden Road, Totland. The conditions in dispute are the six week holiday limitation and the retention of the units with the main holiday complex.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval with conditions. 

 

 

Committee Decision:

Approval with the above conditions – 20 April 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed and both conditions deleted– 12 January 2005.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

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

·         Removal of the condition retaining the units with the main complex would have no significant impact on leisure facilities or the amenities of the area and its imposition is unnecessary and unduly restrictive.

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

·         This condition would ensure permanent residential use would not be established.

·         Neither T1 or T3 of the UDP refer to a need to ensure only short term lets occur.

·         There is no support for a condition restricting holiday occupation to six weeks in Circular 11/95 or PPG21.

·         The 6 week occupancy condition is unnecessary to prevent permanent residential occupation.

 

 

 

(o)

TCP/14001/P & E/14001/R

Maritime and Leisure Investments Ltd. against refusal of planning permission for a car park and against Enforcement Notice requiring the use of the land for car parking to cease, the railings removed and the land reinstated to its original condition, at Embankment Road, Bembridge.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal and enforcement action.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal and enforcement action – 23 September 2003.

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Both dismissed – 29 December 2004.

 

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

·          The implications for road safety.

·          Whether the level of parking provision is appropriate.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The site forms and important gap between Bembridge and St. Helens.

·                                 The site is next to a SSSI and other protective designations and its use for an inappropriate purpose could have damaging consequences for the character and appearance of the surroundings.

·                                 It is not unreasonable to expect some level of associated parking provision for the houseboats and the present informal arrangements are uncontrolled.

 

 

·          The proposal would consolidate the informal parking and offers an opportunity for improvement but would increase the number of spaces which weighs against the scheme.

·          The present informal arrangements at right angles or parallel to the road are dangerous.

·          Although no detailed plans have been provided, visibility splays of 90 metres could probably be provided and need to be examined more thoroughly to find the optimum access point within the site.

·          The scheme offers major advantages over the present arrangements in road safety terms.

·          The onus is on the appellant to demonstrate the need for the number of parking spaces in excess of policy TR16.

·          The greatest risk to nearby designated areas is possible run off and pollution.

·          No overriding objections were received from English Nature, Environment Agency or RSPB subject to appropriate mitigation measures being taken.

·          The impact of the scheme would be reduced with a lesser number of spaces.

·          The development as proposed is in conflict with UDP policies but to refuse permission is to ignore the reality of the existence of the houseboats and their highly unsatisfactory parking arrangements.

·          The scheme has significant advantages in principle but its present extent is excessive and unjustified.

·          There is no reason why the appellants should not put forward a revised proposal in which all the concerns could be addressed. 

 

 

 

(p)

TCP/25652/A & E/25652/B

Mr J D Bradley against refusal of planning permission and Enforcement Notice relating to change of use of land for paintball games and erection of structures on land at Cats Copse, West View Road, Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal and enforcement action to ensure cessation of use – 2 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed (both appeals) – 18 January 2005.

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether there has been a breach of planning control.

·          If so, the implications for the use for nature conservation; and

·          The impact on the living conditions of nearby residents.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The appellant’s assertion of the number of events having taken place is unsupported by any kind of documentary evidence or records and is unconvincing even on a balance of probabilities.

·          The two base camps appeared to have been assembled on site and are attached to the ground and the degree of affixation and permanence takes them outside the description of moveable.

·          Even if the games took place on no more than 28 days, operational development has been carried out and as a question of fact and degree, a material change of use has taken place.

·          With a potentially large increase in the number of games, the damage at ground level would be likely to be more widespread and more permanent than at present.

·          Even with a zoned ‘no go’ or sanctuary area, wildlife in this small relatively isolated wood would be particularly susceptible to disturbance.

·          The wood is too small to support the paintball games without material damage to wildlife.

·          In a largely quiet, rural but partly residential area such as this, noise from the games could well become intrusive.

 

 

 

(q)

TCP/10522/D

Trustees of Blackgang Mission against refusal for demolition of former mission hall and the construction of a detached dwelling and garage at former Blackgang Mission Hall, Blythe Shute, Chale.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 17 March 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed – 20 December 2004. 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          Whilst a building exists on this site, it is not a dwelling.

·          The site is not in a sustainable location for new residential development.

·          The existing building, located close to the road, acts as a transition between the built form of Chale and the open countryside beyond. 

·          The proposal would extend the residential development towards the open countryside.

·          The replacement of the mission hall with a dwelling would harm the contribution the site currently makes to the rural landscape within the AONB and the Heritage Coast.

 

 

 

(r)

TCP/26112

Mr and Mrs Scott against refusal for demolition of outbuilding and outline for end of terrace house at 1 Sherwood Road, Newport.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval. 

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal  – 23 March 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Allowed – 7 February 2005. 

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular regard to openness.

·          The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings, particularly numbers 29 and 31 Northumberland Road, in relation to outlook and loss of light.

·          The capacity of the drainage system serving dwellings in the surrounding area. 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The high concrete wall of the prison intrudes into the openness of the street scene.

·          The extension of the existing pair of houses would reduce the visual impact of the prison and enhance the open character of the area.

·          There would be sufficient separation between the existing dwellings and the proposed house for there not to be a significant on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers.

·          The proposed dwelling in conjunction with the adjacent prison building would not have a materially adverse effect on the outlook from numbers 29 and 31.

·          There may be some effect on the light falling on the ground floor front windows of numbers 29 and 31 but not so significant to justify the rejection of the proposal on this ground alone.

·          No evidence was submitted regarding the adequacy of the drainage system in the area.

·          The problems experienced by residents does not in itself amount to a reason to base this permission to be withheld.

·          Planning permission has recently been granted for a new dwelling nearby in Northumberland Road subject to a condition to ensure an adequate system of drainage could be provided.

·          The Council’s concerns on this ground could be similarly addressed.

·          The Council has not demonstrated that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the capacity of the drainage system serving the dwellings in the surrounding area.

·          The Inspector noted the concerns regarding the construction work and its effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, and on one child in particular, but whilst sympathising with the circumstances did not consider this outweighed the more general planning considerations.

 

 

 

(s)

TCP/25804/A

Mr and Mrs P Butchers against refusal for the demolition of existing garage and office and alterations and a 1/2/3 storey extension to enlarge accommodation to include replacement garage at 60 Albert Road, Gurnard

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 9 February 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed – 7 February 2005. 

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·           The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the adjacent street scene.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          Albert Road contains dwellings of a variety of styles and sizes which is part of the character of the street scene.

·          Number 60 and 62 together form a substantial gable fronted building.

·          A significant feature of the street scene is the space about the buildings.

·          The proposal would have an awkward appearance and would be seen as a separate and dominant building even though attached to number 60.

·          The disproportionate scale and discordant appearance of the extension would be out of character with numbers 60 and 62.

·          Whilst the extension would be set back from the main building its dominance would almost totally displace the existing quality and spaciousness to the side of number 60.

·          The extension would intrude upon the remaining space to the side of number 58.

·          The development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the adjacent street scene of Albert Road.

 

 

 

(t)

TCP/23493/B

Mr P Davies against refusal for outline for dwelling, land adjacent 37 Sylvan Avenue, East Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 25 March 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed – 7 February 2005. 

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·           The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene in the vicinity of the junction of Sylvan Avenue and John Nash Avenue.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The character of the area is distinguished by a quality of spaciousness derived from the original open place principles.

·          This corner site makes an important and significant contribution to the spatial quality of the street scene.

·          The erection of a new dwelling would extend the range of houses fronting Sylvan Avenue beyond the building line of the adjacent bungalows in John Nash Avenue and reduce the space about the junction.

·          The proposed dwelling would have a close proximity to number 36 Sylvan Avenue and would contribute to a cramped and intrusive appearance.

·          The hedge around the site is a significant feature in the street scene but does not erode the spaciousness between buildings.

·          Whilst it is the appellants intention to achieve a more efficient use of this land pursuant to PPG3, the proposal fails to respect the character and appearance of the wider context.

·          The development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.

 

 

 

(u)

TCP/12107/A

Mr M Goodall and Mr P Tyson against refusal for demolition of dwelling and erection of a 3/4 storey block of 10 flats with 2 parking space at 38 Mill Hill Road, Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval. 

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal  – 3 August 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Allowed – 17 February 2005. 

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Mill Hill Road and other surrounding roads.

·          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance on the surrounding urban locality.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The site is in a zone 2 within easy walking distance of the town centre and has a good bus service.

·          There are site visibility concerns over an increase in the existing on site provision of two parking spaces.

·          Given the above site constraints and policy framework it is reasonable to restrict on site parking to the level that exists.

·          The development would be consistent with PPG13 and policy TR16.

·          The development would make efficient use of this brownfield site in accordance with PPG3.

·          The proposed 3/4 storey building would not be over dominant or out of scale in its surroundings.

·          The building would be in sympathy with the character and appearance of the surrounding  locality.

·          Ten units of accommodation at this accessible site would make efficient use of the site and accord with H4.

·          A Section 106 has been completed for transport infrastructure payments, open space and recreational contribution and education contribution.

 

 

 

(v)

TCP/17737/A

Mr R Lacey against refusal for detached house on land between 26 and 28 Station Road, St. Helens.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 19 May 2004. 

 

 

Appeal Decisions:

Dismissed – 17 February 2005. 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The vicinity of the appeal site is characterised by semi-detached houses with relatively extensive gaps between.

·          The proposed development between two of these houses would materially close the existing gap between.

·          The development would have a cramped and incongruous siting relative to the other properties in the vicinity and would detract from the spaciousness that characterises this side of the road.

·          The development would fail to comply with G4 and D1.

·          In reaching this decision, PPG3 policy to develop sites within built up areas has been balanced against the need to not compromise the quality of the environment.

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services