URGENT BUSINESS

REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 15 MARCH 2005

TCP/13798/C – P/01572/04

Demolition of shops and flats; 3/4 storey building to form retail store (Class A1) with 9 flats over; vehicular access & basement parking (revised plans) (re-advertised application); Island Furnishing, 52 – 58 High Street, Ventnor

Officer: Mr Hougham, Development Control Manager Tel: (01983) 825576

Summary

To consider a request from the applicant’s agent in connection with a specific condition imposed on the Conservation Area Consent concerning the aforementioned proposed development.

Background

Members may recall that the application and a separate application for Conservation Area Consent (CAC) for demolition of buildings were considered by this Committee at the meeting held on 7 December 2004. In accordance with the recommendation Members decided to grant conditional permission. CAC was also granted on a conditional basis which included a specific condition which relates to the timing of the demolition of the buildings on site.

The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be commenced until a binding contract for the carrying out of the works redevelopment of the site has been entered into and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.

The reason for the imposition of this condition was to protect the special character of the area and to prevent the site remaining vacant for a significant period of time and to comply with Policies B1 to B8 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Unitary Development Plan.

A letter has been received from the applicant’s agent asking the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to take a view on a specific difficulty that has arisen in respect of the possible redevelopment of this site and the requirements of the aforementioned condition.

The situation can be summarised in the following terms:

· Developers wish to develop the site and be open for trading in Spring 2006 and therefore wish to demolish the existing building as soon as possible.

· Contract for the redevelopment of the site cannot be completed until surveyors have made an accurate assessment of ground conditions which obviously will necessitate the demolition of the buildings. The agent estimates that there could be a significant variation in terms of developing cost depending on the results of this investigation (i.e. up to £200,000)

· Completion (i.e. purchase of the site) is likely to take place early next month and the dilemma is how the developers achieve demolition while providing the Council with a degree of assurance that the site would be virtually immediately redeveloped as opposed to being left as open ground for a considerable period of time.

· As evidence of good intentions the agents have pointed out that the developer would undertake to proceed without any delay and that, in any case, this site and the adjacent re-development sites, particularly the former Hole in the Wall will need to be redeveloped at the same time because of practical difficulties associated with the density of development within an urban location.

The Development Control Manager decided that this decision should be taken by the Committee as opposed to officers taking a view under delegated powers.

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1. Members accept that the prospective developer has a sustainable argument and agree to suspend any potential enforcement action in respect of the breach of condition for a period of six months subject to the developers:

· Providing written confirmation of their recognition that they fail to satisfy the terms of the planning condition by 15 September 2005 they will be in breach of planning condition which may result in the service of Notice.

· Prior to any demolition works taking place on site the developer is required to submit for approval details of the overall height and decoration of the temporary hoarding that will be used to screen the cleared site.

2. Members accept that the prospective developers have a sustainable argument but are not prepared to agree to a temporary suspension of any potential enforcement action and insist that an application is submitted for the removal or variation of the condition.

3. Members do not accept that the developer has a sustainable argument and advise the developers that if they have difficulty with complying with the condition they should consider lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

Conclusion

The imposition of the aforementioned condition on applications for Conservation Area Consent where there is substantial demolition work in order to facilitate redevelopment of a site is relatively standard practice when the land is within a designated Conservation Area.

Notwithstanding the poor condition of the existing buildings on this particular site, it is my view that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, has adopted a prudent approach designed to protect, if not enhance, the visual amenity of the area by avoiding an open cleared site within the streetscene for an indeterminate period of time. Consequently, I take the view that the imposition of this particular condition was justified.

It is unusual for there to be any problems associated with the imposition of this condition but in this particular case the existing buildings cover a large part of the overall site; the buildings are Victorian (or possibly Edwardian) and are known to include some subterranean rooms and they are not in a good state of repair. If you combine these factors with geotechnic conditions which prevail in the locality, Members will probably agree that the developers will need to demolish the buildings and investigate the ground conditions before completing a contract for the redevelopment of the site.

On the assumption that Members accept the position outlined in the preceding paragraph, the Council needs to establish when agreeing to the request how the matter should be handled. Strict application of planning law would necessitate us requesting the applicants to make a formal application for the removal or variation of this condition. In practical terms it would seem that the most sensible approach is not to enforce the condition, if the buildings are to be demolished prior to the completion of a contract for the carrying of works of redevelopment of the site, for a period of six months. This concession on the part of the Council would be providing the developers and their agent understand that if at the end of that period they are unable to produce a contract for the works then they will be in breach of condition. The situation also offers the opportunity the overall size (mainly height) and decoration of any temporary hoarding across the front of the cleared site to be agreed by officers prior to erection on site.

Recommendation

Members accept that the prospective developer has a sustainable argument and agree to suspend any potential enforcement action in respect of the breach of condition for a period of six months subject to the developers:

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services