Warning

PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 15 MAY 2001

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART I 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 PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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 of 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 Legal Services Manager, 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 PART III APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 15 MAY 2001

1. TCP/00555/F P/01906/00

former Westlands Sports Ground, Old Road, East Cowes, PO32 6AW
East Cowes

2. TCP/03617/A P/00186/01

Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301SS
Newport

3. TCP/03617/B P/00131/01

Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301SS
Newport

4. TCP/04443/M P/00606/01

land off Well Road and to rear of 34, York Avenue, East Cowes, PO32
East Cowes

5. TCP/06438/E P/00263/01

site of former dairy, South Street, Yarmouth, PO41
Yarmouth

6. TCP/07081/V P/0086/00

land off, Love Lane, Cowes, PO31
Cowes

7. TCP/07102/S P/01933/00

Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 7, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30
Newport

8. TCP/07102/T P/01941/00

Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 12, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30
Newport

9. TCP/07933/H P/00435/01

Ocean Deck 50, High Street, Sandown, PO368AE
Sandown

10. TCP/08200/V P/00374/01

Albion Hotel / Mermaid Cafe, Freshwater Bay, Freshwater, PO409RA
Freshwater

11. TCP/09518/D P/00422/01

New York House, 12 Castle Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317QY
Cowes

12. TCP/12553/G P/00291/01

Rychris Court, Victoria Avenue, Shanklin, PO37
Shanklin

13. TCP/16040/D P/00333/01

land between 16 and 20, Church Road, Shanklin, PO37
Shanklin

14. TCP/17998/R P/00252/01

land rear of Coppitts Green, Niton Road, Rookley, Ventnor, PO38
Rookley

15. TCP/19175/R P/00367/01

Medina View East Cowes Marina, Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32
East Cowes

16. TCP/21354/K P/00284/01

Fakenham Farm, Eddington Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331XS
St. Helens

17. TCP/21596/B P/01855/00

3 Watergate Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301XN
Newport

18. TCP/22584/C P/00092/01

Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Ningwood, Newport, PO30
Shalfleet

19. TCP/23601/B P/01831/00

land rear of 40-40A, Station Road, St. Helens, Ryde, PO33
St. Helens

20. TCP/23877/A P/00308/01

Willow Tree Tea Gardens, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383HZ
Godshill

21. TCP/23950 P/00117/01

Kingswell Dairy, 391 Newport Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318PP
Northwood

22. TCPL/24012 P/00386/01

Ryde House, Binstead Road,

Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF
Ryde

23. TCPL/24012/A P/00397/01

Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF
Ryde

24. LBC/24012/B P/00398/01

Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF
Ryde

25. LBC/24012/C P/00621/01

Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF
Ryde

PART III

1. TCP/00555/F P/01906/00 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes 1

Registration Date: 21/12/2000 - Reserved Matters

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

79 houses, garages, access roads & formation of vehicular/pedestrian access (aorm) former Westlands Sports Ground, Old Road, East Cowes, PO32 6AW

Representations

East Cowes Town Council comment as follows:

"Council Members are concerned about the landscaping and loss of mature trees; they would like to see as many mature trees retained as possible, particularly those along Old Road. The plans do not reflect reference to mature greenery as described in the Design Statement. Council Members would like to request details of landscaping plans, particularly those with the boundary with Old Road."

Application has been subject of eight letters of objection and comment, all from residents of Old Road. In terms of these comments and objections, Members are advised this is a reserved matters application covering design, external appearance and landscaping only and therefore the following summary represents those comments relating to the reserved matters only:

General concern that the layout indicates houses turning their back on Old Road and therefore rear gardens abut that road and the impact that may have on the general area.

Objectors consider that the proposal which only indicates a fence along the boundary to Old Road represents an inadequate method of addressing this potential problem, with the suggestion being that if the houses have to be turned to face away from Old Road, then the rear gardens should be screened by a more substantial boundary treatment, ie a wall.

Concern that development in this form will result in a loss of a number of large mature trees along the Old Road frontage.

Environment Agency has suggested drainage conditions in respect of this reserved matters application. However, 'drainage' is not a matter under consideration. These conditions cannot be applied. (Drainage issue is covered by the conditions on the outline consent).

Letters also make reference to concerns relating to drainage in the area. This is not a reserved matter subject of the current application.

Evaluation

Application relates to former Westland's recreation ground situated off Old Road and backing onto properties fronting onto north western side of Newbarn Road. Site has a part constructed junction accessed off Old Road and is heavily treed along its frontage to Old Road. Surrounding development is almost entirely in the form of large detached residential units within substantial plots. Opposite site is similar established detached dwellings on slightly smaller plots. Old Road itself has a varying carriageway width with limited footpath provision.

Relevant history relates to an outline consent granted in May 2000 for 79 dwellings; formation of vehicular access and landscaping; traffic calming measures to Old Road between site and Newbarn Road. That approval also gave consent to siting and means of access leaving design, external appearance and landscaping as reserved matters. That consent was also subject of a number of conditions covering submission of details relating to roads and drainage, inclusion of a footway along the frontage onto Old Road, provision of visibility splay, conditions relating to tree protection, landscaping, management of landscaping, removal of all excavated materials from the site and the requirement for a detailed landscaping along the rear boundary of properties 1-7 where that boundary fronts onto Old Road.

In terms of the current application, this seeks consent for reserved matters and therefore submits details of the design of the dwellings, along with their external appearance in respect of materials and indicates details of the landscaping proposals which include boundary treatments.

The dwellings are a mixture of four, three and two bedroomed detached and semi-detached units, these are to be constructed in a mixture of multi stock facing bricks with, in some cases, colour wash render under clay tiled roofs. All materials are covered in a submitted schedule of materials.

Whilst there have been some minor adjustments in the layout, none of the units are closer to existing boundaries than indicated on the approved outline consent and in some cases the units are further away.

Landscaping proposals are fully detailed and show extensive planting between the rear boundary which fronts Old Road of plots 1-3 and plots 76-79 inclusive. This landscaped area is to act as a buffer between the visibility splay and the rear boundary and provides for planting of a mixture of mainly shrubs with trees.

The most important and only landscape feature on the site is the treed area along the Old Road frontage and therefore the applicants have been requested to supply a drawing which indicates the number of these trees which are to be removed and those which are to be retained. Unfortunately, because of the important need to provide a good quality visibility splay, this will have an impact on retention of some of these trees. This apart however, I am now satisfied that every effort has been made to retain those trees outside the visibility splay and these are to be retained along with substantial replanting. Also a dwelling on plot 79 has been readjusted to ensure retention of a particularly prominent tree on that corner.

Again, reference is made to the importance of the boundary treatment along this frontage which has been subject of negotiation and I am pleased to report that the applicants have acceded to my suggestion that a wall would provide a more visually acceptable boundary treatment which would have the advantage of being maintenance free. In this regard, applicants have indicated a 1.5 metre high wall with saddle back coping, brick piers etc. On top of this wall would be a curved trellis work to give a visual intermittent barrier between street and garden. At this height and because of the lower level of Old Road, a wall of this height will provide effective screening and this coupled with the maturing of the proposed shrubbery will create an effective screen along this important boundary and indicates that the applicants have looked at this particular issue carefully, being aware that the dwellings have turned their back on the road contrary to the prevailing theme along Old Road. I consider the details now submitted in respect of this important boundary are sufficient to indicate that this sensitive issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

Other issues relate to maintenance of those areas of landscaping and grassed areas outside the curtilage of any of the proposed dwellings. Members will be aware that this is always a difficult issue to address and applicants are still considering what method should be used. I am satisfied however, that a condition on the outline consent requiring a landscape management plan to be submitted is sufficient for the Planning Authority to exercise control.

Given the above, I consider the reserved matters which are the subject of this application have been addressed appropriately and recommend accordingly.

Finally, with regard to this site, Members will recall that the original outline consent was the subject of a Section 106 agreement requiring the construction of at least seven affordable housing units elsewhere in East Cowes. It is my understanding that these seven units have been completed and further clarification is being sought to see if item S106 Agreement has been complied with. Also that legal agreement required a contribution to traffic calming measures in Old Road and again it is my understanding that this contribution has been made.

Given the above, I recommend accordingly to this reserved matters application subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1 No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) No placement or storage of material;

(b) No placement or storage of fuels or 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 ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

2 No development shall commence on the site until the approved planting scheme as indicated on the landscape architect's drawing no. 008/1P has been completed, with such planting being protected by temporary fencing of agreed design during the period of construction work. All such planting shall be maintained to encourage its establishment for a minimum of five years following contractual practical completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs or significant areas of planting which are removed, die, become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective within this period shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity and screening to Old Road in compliance with Policy D3 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/03617/A P/00186/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport Central

Registration Date: 14/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Alterations & change of use of part 1st floor & formation of 2nd floor for class A3 use (food & drink) Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 1SS

See Joint Report on Application No. TCP/3617B/P131/01

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 No development shall take place until details of the proposed alterations to the front elevation have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the final finish to the front wall at ground floor level, alterations to the existing fascia and a specification of the design and materials for the replacement doors.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 and B6 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

3 No deliveries or despatches from the premises shall take place outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays, outside the hours of 07.30 to 16.00 on Saturdays and at any times on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.

4 The rating level of the noise emitted from the proposed mechanical services plant, shown on the attached drawing No. 0027/06/A, shall be lower than the "night-time" existing background noise level determined to be LA90 5 minutes 43 dB (in the absence of extraction plant noise from 22 High Street) by at least 3 dB (and shall have no distinguishable tonal component within any Octave Band Level) between 23:00 and 07.00 hours daily, and shall not exceed the existing "daytime" noise level determined to be LA90 60 minutes 51 dB at any time (and shall have no distinguishable tonal component within any Octave Band Level) between 07.00 and 23.00 hours daily. The noise levels shall be determined at the end of the alleyway between the Picturedrome Cinema and No. 22 High Street as close, as is possible, to the boundary with 124 Pyle Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, with the extraction plant at 22 High Street not operating. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.

5 Before the proposed mechanical services plant as shown on drawing No. 0027/06/A is used in the proposed development, the plant shall be constructed in such a manner so as to incorporate sound insulating materials and the plant shall be mounted in such a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound, so as to ensure that the noise control measures, in particular paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 as specified in the applicants' noise consultant's report No, 1964.1v1 dated April 2001, are met. These measures shall thereafter be maintained during the use of the premises.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.

6 Prior to the hereby approved use commencing, the proposed noise control measures, to control noise other than from mechanical services plant from this development, as detailed in Section 5 of the applicants acoustic report No. 1964 lvl dated April 2001, shall be implemented in full. These measures shall thereafter be maintained during the use of the premises.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.

7 The kitchen shall be fitted with an extract ventilation system which shall comprise; suitably sealed and fireproof exhaust ducting installed from the point of extraction, to an extractor fan and thence to a suitable point of discharge to atmosphere. The extractor fan shall be appropriately sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential of dis-amenity from noise or vibration such as including where appropriate acoustic housing, silencing and system design. The system shall also incorporate: a pre filter/grease filter, a carbon filter deodoriser, with easy access for cleaning and replacement and adequate provision for access to facilitate dismantling and thorough cleaning. The system shall be maintained and effectively operated during the use of the premises.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.

8 Adequate provision must be made for the temporary storage of refuse on the premises and the disposal of litter in the vicinity of it. In particular, suitably sited accommodation shall be provided for waste receptacles which shall be regularly emptied and cleaned as necessary.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general.

TCP/03617/B P/00131/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport Central

Registration Date: 15/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Alterations & change of use of part of former cinema to form licensed premises Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30 1SS

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Principal Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions should applications be approved.

Islandwatch object on grounds that insertion of additional doorways and, in particular, a roller shutter in the frontage will be completely out of sympathy with building. They state that this is the only 1930's building of any significance left in Newport, and an important element of the town's main thoroughfare. They acknowledge that the facade requires attention, but state that sympathetic refurbishment is needed.

Isle of Wight Licensed Retailers Association object on grounds that the concentration of drinking establishments in Newport will impact on rural pubs, leading to closure and therefore affecting tourism.

One letter received from owner of Orme House, Pyle Street which abuts to the rear. Signatories of letter state that they have no objection in principle but are concerned regarding sound insulation and visual intrusion. They request that external noise limits are set at 30 dB or below between 22.00 and 08.00 hours, a 22.00 to 08.00 hours curfew on operation of any extractor fans, and restrictions on leaving open external rear doors are set, similar to conditions on other establishments in the immediate area. Concern that the installation of windows or an external fire escape may lead to overlooking and loss of privacy. Also state that any additions or alterations should be carried out in a sympathetic manner to minimise impact on nearby listed building.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer and Licensing Officer have been consulted and any views will be reported at the meeting.

Evaluation

Application relates to the Picturedrome Cinema located on the southern side of Newport High Street. The cinema ceased trading during the summer of 2000. Building is three storeys in height under a flat roof. Building has a passageway along each side providing a means of escape in the case of an emergency. Front facade has glazed entrance doors at ground floor level with blue and white plastic cladding either side. Windows at first and part of second floor level reflect Art Decco design which was prevalent at the time of construction. The large central window is divided into small panes with a horizontal emphasis surrounded by a rendered feature. Two windows either side are slender and vertically emphasised surrounded by feature dressings. Building currently has three floors at the front comprising of foyers, toilets, store rooms, battery room, projector rooms, food kiosks etc with two auditoriums behind. The site is within Newport Conservation Area.

Members should note that two separate planning applications have been submitted for the building:

Firstly, TCP/3617B, which seeks consent to use the ground and part of the first floor as licensed premises. Submitted layout shows the ground floor to comprise of sitting area, bar, dance floor, kitchen/food preparation area, food store, cellar and staff facilities with customer toilets shown to be at first floor level.

Submitted plans indicate that new entrance doors will be installed. It is also proposed to insert glass panels above each door to allow more light into building. A new curved glazed canopy with support rods is also proposed to go over entrance doors. Other external alterations relate to both side elevations. Proposed west elevation involves the blocking up of seven windows, one door and one vent duct and the installation of two sets of double doors providing an escape route and delivery point. This elevation will also contain extract vents for kitchen, food store and bin store as well as condenser units. Proposed east elevation involves the blocking up of two windows, installation of one set of escape doors, three new window openings and new extractor vents for the bar area, toilets and boiler.

Agent has confirmed that both hot and cold food will be sold from the premises between 11.00 and 19.00 hours. A full specification of kitchen extract equipment has been submitted and assessed by the Principal Environmental Officer. He considers this information to be satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Applicant has requested that hours of operation are unrestricted particularly as the building is located within a town centre. Agent has stated that a Justices Licence will be sought and that the hours of operation will be controlled under the Licensing Regulations.

Applicant has now submitted a full acoustic report which has been assessed by the Council's Principal Environmental Health Officer. He considers the content of the report to be satisfactory and has suggested appropriate conditions should application be approved.

The second application is TCP/3617A, which seeks consent to use the upper part of building for A3 (Food and Drink) purposes or to continue the existing D2 (Assembly and Leisure) use. The owner of the building has not secured an operator for the upper part of the building and has therefore had difficulty in submitting precise information. Submitted plans show the removal of both auditoria and associated equipment and the installation of a new floor to separate the ground floor use (Yates') from the proposed first floor use.

For both applications, determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and whether the proposed use of this building will have a detrimental effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by nearby residential property occupiers. Consideration also has to be given to the proposed external alterations and whether these will have an adverse effect on the setting of this building or the Conservation Area in general.

With regard to national policy, PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Development) is considered to be relevant. A diversity of uses in town centres and their accessibility to people living and working in the area is encouraged because it is felt that they make an important contribution to the vitality and viability of town centres. Paragraph 2.12 states:

"The Local Planning Authority should therefore encourage diversification of uses in the town centre as a whole ..... Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening, can reinforce each other making town centres more attractive to local residents, shoppers and visitors. Leisure and entertainment facilities ..... restaurants, pubs, bars and cafes all add variety."

Whilst confirming that leisure uses may disturb nearby residents, any planning permissions should be granted subject to conditions which would protect amenities and thereby residents, some leisure uses (including pubs) are best located in local centres whilst others need to attract customers from a wider catchment area.

In terms of local policy, application site is shown to be within town centre boundary for Newport as identified on the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies are considered to be R6, R11, R14, D1 and B6 of the aforementioned document. R6 refers to areas outside retail only frontages and states that planning proposals for retail A1, A2 and A3 uses within the defined town centre shopping areas but outside the retail only frontages will be acceptable in principle. R11 refers to recreation and leisure uses in town centres and states that applications which involve the loss of key recreation and leisure uses in town centres which are benefiting their vitality and viability will only be approved where the proposal is considered to provide for a need not currently met within the centre and is necessary to promote its vitality and viability and no alternative sites are available or viable within a town centre. R14 refers to cultural or leisure development within towns and states that applications for new cultural or leisure developments will be approved within town centre locations outside the retail only frontages. D1 refers to standards of design and states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and conform with numerous criteria stipulated under this policy. B6 refers to the protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas and states that applications which preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas will be approved.

Members are aware that the cinema use of this building ceased in summer 2000 and that this function is now operated from the Multiplex Cinema at Coppins Bridge. The application building currently has a D2 use under the Use Classes Order with this category also including other uses such as music and concert hall, dance, gymnasium, bingo hall and casino. One of the two applications under consideration is to change the use of the ground floor from D2 to A3 (Food and Drink). The proposed pub use of this part of the building will continue to attract people to this part of the High Street, thereby promoting the vitality and viability of the town centre particularly in relation to the evening economy. The second application seeks consent to use the remainder of the building either for A3 purposes or to continue the existing leisure use. The exact nature of use will not be known until an operator has been secured.

Taking the above points into consideration, I consider both applications to be acceptable in principle.

Concern has been expressed that the concentration of public houses in Newport will affect the trade of rural licensed establishments which, in turn, could impact on the tourist economy of the Island if those country pubs have to close and therefore not offer a "stopping off place" for tourists and walkers. I am of the opinion that two different markets can be identified in terms of using public houses. There are those who wish to use pubs and other facilities offered by the Town Centre and those who would prefer to enjoy a drink and meal at a more rural establishment. I therefore take the view that concern relating to impact on rural pubs will not substantiate a reason for refusal.

Regarding impact on neighbouring property occupier to rear, concern relates to noise from operation of business and associated extract equipment, loss of privacy through overlooking and the general disturbance associated with this type of business. Applicant was asked to submit an acoustic report which describes the existing noise climate, assesses the potential noise impact of proposal and proposes noise control measures. This report identified an existing background noise level at different times of the day and night. The report indicates that the proposed music level will be at least 8 decibels lower than the existing background level and that plant noise will be at least 5 decibels below the existing nighttime background noise level at the nearest residential property. Noise control measures have also been proposed in the report. These include doors being fitted with acoustic seals, doors being of solid timber, windows being non-openable with glass being of an appropriate thickness and music levels being controlled with a suitable electronic limiting device. This report has been assessed by the Council's Principal Environmental Health Officer who is satisfied with the proposed development subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.

It should be noted that the acoustic report relates to the proposed ground floor use only. The owner of the building has not yet secured an operator for the remainder of the building and therefore the exact use of the upper floors is not known. The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that suitable conditions can be applied to ensure that the noise and smell issues which might be associated with the use of the upper floors can be addressed before the remainder of the building is brought into use.

Regarding loss of privacy, submitted plans show that no windows are to be installed in the rear elevation of the building and that the proposed fire escape will be enclosed. I am therefore of the opinion that any loss of privacy as a result of this development will not be of any significance.

In terms of general disturbance associated with the proposed use, concern has been expressed that patrons of the proposed use may congregate in the alleyway which runs along the eastern wall of application building. There is no barrier between the alleyway and Newport High Street as it is part of the emergency escape route from the building. However, there are occasions when people use the alleyway for whatever reason. This is a problem that currently exists and one which, in my opinion, will not be exacerbated significantly as a result of this application.

Regarding external alterations, changes to the front elevation are relatively minor. Proposed front elevation shows three sets of new entrance doors in a central position. Each set of doors is shown to have a glazed panel above. Each glazed panel has been designed to reflect the horizontal emphasis of the large window directly above. Agent has confirmed that the blue and white plastic cladding at ground floor level will be removed. The final finish to front elevation at ground floor level will depend on the type and condition of wall behind. This can be controlled by way of an appropriately worded condition should Members be minded to approve application. There is a curved glazed canopy supported by rods directly above the entrance doors. Alterations to other elevations include the blocking up of some windows and the installation of others. New escape doors and ventilation grills are proposed. Plans also show a new fire escape attached to the western elevation towards the back of the building. This fire escape is to be enclosed by powder-coated profiled metal sheeting. Applicants are conscious of the individuality of application building and have attempted to preserve the characteristic features of former cinema such as the windows at first and part of second floor level. Application has been viewed by the Council's Conservation Officer who takes the view that proposed alterations will not adversely affect the appearance and setting of this building nor have a detrimental impact on character of Conservation Area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the subdivision of former cinema building into two units comprising of a pub at ground floor with either an A3 (Food and Drink) or D2 (Leisure Assembly) above will contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre, particularly the evening economy. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that proposed development can be carried out without adversely affecting the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of Conservation Area in general. Proposal therefore accords with policies.

Recommendation - Approval (both applications)

TCP/04443/M P/00606/01 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes 1

Registration Date: 03/04/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Demolition of workshop; proposed workshop with access from York Avenue; proposed dwelling with access off Well Road land off Well Road and to rear of 34, York Avenue, East Cowes, PO32

Representations

East Cowes Town Council object to proposal on grounds that it is backland development in a high density area.

Highway Engineer requests standard condition relating to closure of access being imposed on any consent.

Evaluation

Application relates to land situated between York Avenue and Well Road which previously comprised dilapidated single storey workshop building located rear of properties fronting York Avenue. This building has recently been demolished.

Members may recall that application seeking consent for demolition of workshop and construction of bungalow and house on site was refused in January 2000. Reasons for refusal were density of development, undesirable arrangement of dwellings, substandard environment for future occupants and setting of precedent.

Subsequent application seeking consent for partial demolition of existing workshop with new building to form replacement workshop and office accommodation over was refused in August 2000. Reasons for refusal related to overdevelopment of site and relationship with residential and commercial properties, inappropriately located industrial building likely to conflict with neighbouring site, undesirable precedent and inadequate turning on site.

This refusal has been the subject of an appeal and informal Hearing scheduled for 7 June 2001 has been held in abeyance following submission of this application.

Current proposal differs from previous submission in seeking to construct smaller workshop premises at ground floor level having entrance onto York Avenue, together with construction of two bedroomed residential unit fronting Well Road rather than previously proposed office accommodation. Building is otherwise identical in terms of scale and design, apart from removal of garage doors on Well Road frontage. Footprint of building is same as single storey workshop approved on site in September 1995 and to which agent claims that demolition undertaken constitutes a commencement of this consent.

Briefly, building will have overall dimensions of some 18.2 metres in length with maximum width of some 5.2 metres. In terms of height, workshop located rear of 34 York Avenue would be single storey with two storey residential accommodation fronting Well Road comprising kitchen/dining room and lounge at ground floor level with two bedrooms and shower room above. Height to main ridge would be approximately 6.4 metres above ground level. No parking is shown in connection with proposed residential unit.

Main planning considerations are again appropriateness of development in terms of scale, mass and design, impact on street scene and on adjoining residential occupiers in particular. Other issues relate to highway matters and potential for setting precedent.

In terms of usage, agent confirms that single storey workshop will be used for light industrial purposes and therefore there should be no conflict in terms of relative position of workshop and proposed residential unit or existing surrounding property.

Whilst previous scheme was not supported in terms of overdevelopment given scale of business premises to be constructed, it should be appreciated that footprint of building is identical to single storey workshop previously approved on site. Main difference from 1995 approval is fact that part of building will be used for residential purposes with accommodation above and increase in height of building providing pitched roof with limited window openings rather than monopitched roof previously proposed in 1995 approval. Main window openings are predominantly located at ground floor level a minimum distance of some 4 metres from adjoining residential boundary. First floor windows involve obscure glazed shower window with Velux light providing light to second bedroom. Given extent and type of window openings and distance from common boundary with residential property, it is now considered that proposal as amended represents reasonable compromise between previously approved workshop building and current proposal which seeks to retain workshop premises whilst introducing small residential unit to Well Road frontage.

Whilst setting of precedent was issue on previous schemes, I am satisfied that given existence of commercial premises adjacent application site to north west, new build on Well Road frontage will be seen as continuation of this built form and given this situation, it could be argued that proposal does not necessarily set precedent for further development on individual plots having return frontages onto Well Road. It should also be noted that planning approval for replacement workshop on this site has already been granted and such planning background and site circumstances are not available to adjoining potential plots.

In terms of highway issues, Highway Engineer is now satisfied that introduction of residential unit with no parking and separate access point for workshop does not require turning within site and therefore does not object on highway grounds.

Reasons for Recommendation

Given planning history of this site, extant planning approval and revisions to the scheme, I consider proposal now represents acceptable development of this site retaining workshop element whilst introducing residential unit and represents appropriate in town development providing residential accommodation which would not look out of place when viewed in street scene, have no undue adverse effect on residential occupiers and raising no issue in terms of setting of precedent. I therefore consider proposal complies with Policies G4, G10, D1 and E9 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02

3 The workshop hereby approved shall only be used as (a) "Light Industrial Building(s)" as defined in Class B1(c) of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, that is to say, as an industrial building, in which the processes carried out, or the machinery installed, are such as can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining residential property in particular.

4 No outside manufacture/storage - D04

5 No outside storage of materials - D05

6 The existing vehicular access to the site from Well Road shall be stopped-up and abandoned and the footway crossing shall be reinstated prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property.

TCP/06438/E P/00263/01 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Calbourne Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 27/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Retention of vehicular access site of former dairy, South Street, Yarmouth, PO41

Representations

Yarmouth Town Council raise no objection to the retention of the existing vehicular access.

Letter received from a Tennyson Road resident which makes the following point.

"....... there are now three residential units and a change of use application was approved for change of use to three residential units with no parking, the dairy no longer exists so how you can retain an access to a dairy that is not there."

Fact that dairy had an access is not a reason to approve this application and if parking required, there should be an application for that as well. Space available for parking is under the recommended size.

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

Evaluation

Application relates to a completed development located on the southwestern corner of a junction of South Street with High Street, Yarmouth. The development consists of two 2-storey dwellings within the northern area of the site and the conversion of an existing dairy building into a two storey dwelling. (Total three dwellings). The site abuts a pair of properties, 1 and 2 Grove Place (Grade II Listed Buildings). The site is situated within an area of Yarmouth where most of the buildings are located directly abutting the narrow footways in South Street and provide no on-site parking. Members will be aware that the High Street is partially pedestrianised.

Members are advised that the development was allowed on appeal in August 1999 with the Inspector applying a number of conditions, one of which related to the stone boundary wall and is quoted as follows:

"The existing stone boundary wall shall be retained as shown on the submitted drawings. The reduction of a gap in the wall fronting South Street shall be of materials reclaimed from the partial removal of the wall to the High Street boundary and shall be of a height and design to match the existing boundary."

The subject matter of the application is the retention of a vehicular access to the converted dairy building on the South Street frontage with the access consisting of a 3 metre gap in the stone wall and the provision of a hardstanding to accommodate a vehicle.

The creation of this vehicular access is contrary to the approved plans and has resulted in the failure to construct the stone boundary wall to the frontage of the converted dairy building. Submitted plans indicate a 3 metre wide by 6 metre deep parking area which virtually takes up the whole of what could be deemed to be the front garden area of that converted property.

Material considerations relate to whether or not the proposal is contrary to the general sustainable transport policies which, among a number of issues, seeks to limit the undesirable impact of car use. This policy in the main relates to PPG13 - Transport with particular reference to the public consultation draft of that particular document. Also reference is made to Policy TR16 within the Unitary Development Plan which seeks to reduce car parking requirements to an operational minimum.

Given the prevailing theme of the area and its relatively close location to Yarmouth Town Centre, I consider that this is a site which quite rightly was appropriate for zero on-site parking and this creation of a parking space would be contrary to that situation. I therefore consider that the proposal is unacceptable on those grounds.

Also, reference is made to the impact of this on-street parking space on the character of the Conservation Area and Members are reminded that there a requirement to ensure that any development preserves or enhances such areas. In this regard, I refer to the Inspector's report in which he makes specific reference to the retained dairy building as follows:

Second is the loss of open space and the effect of the proposals on the retained modest dairy building. In my opinion, the current car parking does not preserve or enhance the street scene especially as High Street is a mainly pedestrian area. The carefully designed scheme with appropriate modelling of the remaining open space will improve the locality and the part this site plays as a component of the Conservation Area.....

From the above, Members will appreciate the importance of the development of this site and its contribution to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area. The description of the site contained within the above mentioned quoted paragraph from the Inspector's report is of particular importance. I therefore consider that the introduction of this parking space contrary to the approved plans will have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the Conservation Area and certainly will not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

A final consideration relates to the formation of the access which inevitably resulted in the loss of part of the low stone boundary wall which forms an important part of the visual amenities of this site. This is unfortunate as the wall has been reconstructed in some cases very carefully and was the endearing feature of the site before its development. Indeed, the Inspector made particular reference to this wall as follows:

"The retention of much of the stone is an important ingredient in that relationship in the street scene which I consider acceptable."

In this regard, the Inspector referred to a satisfactory relationship of the new dwellings with nearby dwellings. I certainly concur with the fact that the access location is the same as the former access point when the site was a cold store depot however, this does not represent justification for its retention for the use of the site has changed radically and is now subject to a considerable number of other policy issues.

Given the above, I am of the view that this proposal is unacceptable.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in the evaluation section of this report, it is considered that approval to the retention of this access would be contrary to sustainable transport policies, along with Conservation Area policies and therefore I recommend accordingly.

1. Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The retention of this individual on-site parking space is inconsistent with sustainable transport policies as set out by the Local Planning Authority in Policy TR16 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 The retention of an on-site parking space in conjunction with the conversion of The Dairy into residential use is contrary to the prevailing character of the area being designated a Conservation Area and its use would therefore be visually harmful and would not protect and enhance the character and amenities of such areas being contrary to Policy B6 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

3 The retention and extension of the stone boundary wall makes an important contribution to this prominent corner site and this proposal to retain the opening to the parking space will diminish the contribution of that stone wall could make to the area with particular reference to its status as a Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Policy B6 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation

That enforcement proceedings be implemented requiring the closure of the vehicular access by the erection of a boundary stone wall to match the existing adjacent boundary wall in compliance with the original approved plan with two months being given for compliance.

TCP/07081/V P/0086/00 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward:

Registration Date: 21/01/2000 - Full Planning Permission

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

Variation of condition no. 9 on TCP/7081U allowing the extension of the type of occupancy to shared ownership in respect of 14 approved affordable housing units, land off, Love Lane, Cowes

Representations

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

One letter of objection received from resident of Three Gates Road with points raised being summarised as follows.

Concern that the original informed intention of Members was to allow rented accommodation only and this proposal could ultimately change that intention.

Affordable rented accommodated is in short supply for those who, for good reasons, may not have the ability to undertake responsibility of home ownership.

Young people should be able to leave parental home to take a job in another town and live near their workplace. Many people are unable to find a permanent job and therefore either they are not eligible for a mortgage or may loose their home they thought they had due to change in circumstances.

Evaluation

Application relates to an area of land situated directly to the south of the reservoir and north of the rear boundaries of property 46 to 52 Love Lane, Cowes. The site includes an area of land which can provide access off Love Lane between 44 and 46 Love Lane. The site forms part of a much larger site of 9.53 hectares to the west which forms the large housing/commercial allocated land between Three Gates Road and Seaview Road.

In August 1998 approval of reserved matters was granted for 164 dwellings, industrial units, associated parking, access road off Three Gates Road and Seaview Road with pedestrian link to Broadfields Avenue and 14 dwellings with access off Love Lane. It is this latter element which is the subject of the current application. That approval of reserved matters was following granting outline consent in 1995.

The approval of reserved matter consent was subject of a number of conditions, the most relevant of which is quoted as follows.

"The 14 residential units off Love Lane being part of Phase I forming part of the development hereby approved shall be used for affordable housing for the purposes of providing housing accommodation for rent to meet the objectives of the registered social landlord except where tenants exercise their rights to purchase properties under the Purchase Grant Scheme included in the Housing Act 1996. Also, the conditions shall not bind or be enforceable against any mortgagee or chargee (or person deriving title from such mortgagee or chargee) who are in possession of any of the 14 units pursuant to any mortgage or charge and which mortgagee or chargee is exercising a power of the site."

The reason for the above condition was to accord with local and national policies regarding provision of affordable housing.

Proposal before Members is to vary that condition as follows:

"The 14 residential units off Love Lane being part of Phase I forming part of the development hereby approved shall be used for affordable housing to meet the objectives of the registered social landlord. The conditions shall not bind or be enforceable against any mortgagee or chargee (or person deriving title from such mortgagee or chargee) who are in possession of any of the 14 units pursuant to any mortgage or charge and which mortgagee or chargee is exercising a power of the site."

Essentially, this application is to remove the reference to affordable housing being for the purposes of providing accommodation for rent. The reason behind the request for a variation is to enable the registered social landlord to develop shared ownership on the site.

Applicant's agent contend that this was always the intended preferred option and the reference to affordable housing only being for rent places too greater constraint thus not allowing the Housing Association to pursue a wider type of tenure i.e. shared ownership. Applicants also contend that this would this would be in accordance with local and national policies regarding provision of affordable housing.

In this regard, applicants advise that the site has now been acquired by a local housing association and point to Circular 6/98 which emphasises that the control of the registered landlord is in itself sufficient control over future occupancy without placing other constraints. It is contended that there is no doubt that shared ownership provided by a registered social landlord falls within the definition of affordable housing.

In planning policy terms, reference has to be made to national policy document Circular 6/98 - Planning and Affordable Housing, PPG3 - Housing March 2000 and Policy H14 in the Unitary Development Plan. It is fair to state that none of these documents refers to preferred tenure being for rent. Most significant issue however in this respect is the clear acknowledgment gleaned from the Need Survey that the need on the Island is for rented for accommodation.

The application has been held in abeyance at the applicant's request to await the UDP Inspector's report with particular reference to his views on the affordable housing policy H14 which is quoted as follows:

"On those sites allocated for residential development shown on the proposals map, and those which become available but are not currently available, the Council will seek to negotiate an element of affordable housing as part of the scheme.

The scale and type of provision will be considered in relation to local needs however, the Council is seeking to achieve 20% of housing on appropriate sites to be developed and handed over to a Registered Social Landlord at a discounted price (50% market value). Mechanisms will need to be put in place to ensure such provision remains in affordable use in the long term.

On suitable sites where the Council considers it preferable to provide affordable housing it may be prepared to accept:

(a) an appropriate contribution of serviced land which may also include built affordable housing units;

(b) a financial contribution sufficient to enable a Housing Association to provide the agreed number of units, either by new building, or the purchase of existing stock."

Members will appreciate that this is a unique application being the first of its kind to be received and can only be assessed on the interpretation of the national and Local Plan policies particularly where they relate to need and therefore rented accommodation as opposed to low cost affordable accommodation. Members will not be surprised that there is a difference of opinion on interpretation. Therefore, the only logical method to assess the merits of this application is to list the applicants' interpretation of the policies and the Council's interpretation of those policies.

Applicants make the following points.

The site is owned by a registered social landlord being a Housing Association and therefore any form of condition is no longer strictly necessary in order to secure the provision of affordable housing and in this regard, they make reference to Circular 6/98 and their interpretation of that document.

The amendment to refer to affordable housing only without further reference to type of tenure is consistent with the wording of Policy H14.

Proposal is consistent with the tenure and neutral approach of Circular 6/98 making reference to a number of paragraphs and also making reference to Circular 11/95 in terms of conditions in which reference is made to conditions should not normally be used to control matters such as tenure, price or ownership.

The Housing Association is obliged to work in partnership with the Council as the strategic housing authority to deliver housing which will be affordable to local people in accordance with the priorities demonstrated by local housing needs survey and other indicators. Such priorities will of course vary geographically over the Island and over time.

Applicants question Council's interpretation of Circular 6/98 where it relates to the imposition of additional occupancy control making the point that there are rigorous housing corporation controls over the disposal of assets of registered social landlords which would preclude the current Housing Association ownership from disposing of properties unless there were very special circumstances. They point out that where, in the unlikely event, a housing association falls into dire financial difficulties the Housing Corporation has, without exception, overseen a transfer of engagements to another registered social landlord rather than properties to be sold on the open market. They emphasise that the fundamental purpose registered social landlord is to provide and manage affordable housing.

Probably, the main contentious issue with regard to this application is the reference to rented accommodation with the applicants stating that this is inconsistent with the advice given in Circular 6/98 and also makes reference to the Inspector's report on the Unitary Development Plan in respect of this matter. Distinction drawn both in Circular 6/98 in the Inspector's report in the view of the applicant, is between subsidised and low cost market housing. The Inspector recognises that low cost market housing would not address the main affordable housing need which would come from the subsidised sector. Applicant emphasises that the provision of shared ownership falls within the core activities and funding priorities recognised in the Housing Corporation's recent policy statements regulating a "diverse sector." Approval of the application would in no way open the flood gates per house builder to submit shared ownership schemes on the basis that the controlling factor would be the Housing Corporation or the Local Authority by a social housing grant which would be the critical element in that process. Housing Corporation would never allocate housing grant to register social landlord without prior discussion with the Housing Authority. Furthermore standard practice for there to be nominations agreement by which a high proportion of all letting/sales are by nomination from the Council and in any event the Housing Association allocation practices have to comply with the Housing Corporation's performance standards.

The Council's view on these issues are summarised as follows.

Reference is made to Circular 6/98 which clearly indicates that houses should remain affordable in the long-term.

Again referring to Circular 6/98 reference is made to advice to Planning Authorities which essentially relates to deliverability with the aim being to ensure that arrangements are such in the processing of the application to ensure objectives of the policy are adhered to as set out in the Local Plan.

The application has not been accompanied by any evidence that there is an identified need for shared ownership in properties in Cowes. The information available i.e Need Survey clearly identifying rented accommodation as the need.

Question the reference by the applicants to Housing Association ownership being sufficient control, however, it is considered that this relates to details such as area wage levels etc not to the specific use of the land.

This proposal would enable "stair casing" which by implication would lead to the loss of such housing for rent from the Housing Association control contrary to the policy in paragraphs within Circular 6/98.

Important contribution in respect of this application is that of the Head of Housing. I consider his comments have significant relevance and are quoted as follows.

"...... in essence, my views are that I would accept that in many parts of the country particularly in the south where house prices are very high, shared ownership is a realistic provision of affordable social housing. The difference on the Island is that while house prices are lower than the rest of the region, the average wage is very much lower and unemployment higher. As a consequence, the only realistic affordable social housing on the Island is rented housing, (social rented not market rented), and that the real factor which determines affordability is housing benefit levels.

There will inevitably always be a small market on the Island for shared ownership, indeed, this Council does support some shared ownership development in the three high demand towns where the registered social landlord can show a proven need. Even so, shared ownership does little to address the severest housing needs on the Island and certainly make no direct contribution to increase to the Island's stock of affordable rented social housing.

I believe PPG3 is sufficiently flexible for local authorities to interpret its application in the context of its own local conditions and I believe the Planning Inspector has recognised this when approving our H14 Policy. Accordingly, whilst acknowledging the shared ownership development can constitute "low cost market housing" and on the mainland sometimes does, I remain satisfied that the provision of affordable social housing through PPG3 must be way of affordable rented housing to make any significant impact on the social housing need on the Island."

Significantly, the Head of Housing disagrees with the applicants' contention that this will not open the floodgates for other sites. He goes on to state:

"On the Island, it has been possible for developers to provide in effect free "affordable social housing" by providing the units at 50% discount. This discount replaces the 50% of Social Housing grants so Social Housing grant is not need and does not therefore control the provision of the afford social housing. The only real control is the planning condition and I remain firm in my view for the reasons given above that the consent should be for housing for rent "in accordance with our current policy." I believe the developers would prefer shared ownership rather than rented as I am sure they would see shared ownership as being less detrimental to the saleability of their site. Accordingly, I have no doubt that allowing shared ownership on this site will encourage other developers elsewhere if the situation is not controlled by our current policy."

From the above, Members will appreciate that the issue here is entirely one of tenure with the applicants claiming that the Council has gone beyond what is considered to be reasonable planning controls as advised in the various national document and therefore should not be referring to the affordable housing being for rent. Whilst obviously, this is a question of interpretation, I am satisfied that the specific needs for the Island as evidenced by the Needs Survey is for rented accommodation and although that original survey is now in the course of being renewed, I am led to believe that it is extremely unlikely that there will be a change in that situation which is likely to come out of a new Need Survey. I am certainly of the view that there is sufficient content within Circular 6/98, PPG3 - Housing, Policy H14 and in the UDP Inspector's comments to back up that contention and to justify the approach that has been taken in respect of controlling tenure.

Secondly, the applicants have failed to accompany their application with any evidence that there is a demand for shared ownership occupation and without that information, it would be difficult to justify a change in emphasis in terms of tenure.

I fully concur with the Head of Housing's comment regarding the precedent that this may set with the developer seeing it as a more acceptable alternative to having to provide affordable housing for rent on sites and any consent for this type of tenure would clearly make it more difficult to resist other applications of a similar nature.

Members will appreciate that this a complex issue very much dependent upon interpretation of significant policy documents and therefore I consider Members should look at the wider picture and in this case, that has been adequately summarised in the Head of Housing comments regarding the unique nature of the Island and that the need is primarily for rented accommodation.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the evaluation, I consider this proposed variation of the condition to be unacceptable on the grounds that it would result in the provision of a type of affordable housing which would not be compatible with the identified local need for the Isle of Wight and would therefore be contrary to Policy H14 where it refers to the scale and type of provision for affordable housing being considered in relation to local needs.

Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The proposed variation of condition to remove reference to rented affordable housing would result in the provision of a type of affordable housing which would fail to meet to the identified local need for having for rent on the Isle of Wight confirmed by the Council's Housing Services Needs Survey of 1996/1997 and would not comply with Policy H14 which requires provision to be made in relation to local needs.

2 The information accompanying the application is inadequate inasmuch that it fails to provide evidence to show there is an identified need for shared housing ownership in Cowes and therefore the Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of this variation of the condition in the absence of that information.

3 Approval of this variation of the affordable housing condition to exclude the reference to the requirement for rented accommodation would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, set a precedent for similar proposals prejudicing the Local Planning Authority's policy and to ensure provision of affordable housing for rent through the planning system.

TCP/07102/S P/01933/00 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 19/12/2000 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566

Continued use of premises for sale of private and commercial vehicle tyres, suspension/brake and exhaust system, Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 7, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight

Representations

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment as the application has no highway implications.

AONB Officer - memo received from which the following points taken.

Visited site spoken to proprietor who indicated to me where he now proposes to store spent tyres and exhaust parts.

Proprietor suggests area now much tidier than previously.

On the basis of the application to be considered, have few objections to the nature of the business as this provides a service to rural clients in the area and thus is reasonably appropriate. Difficulty lies in whether it has a detrimental effect on AONB landscape and on its own, think this would be hard to argue given the building is already there.

Consider surrounding businesses (plant hire, vehicle recovery and scrap cars, car sales) far more detrimental. Do not feel sale of cars is an appropriate activity for this location and would also like to see storage of scrap vehicles on site ended.

Aware owner of Bowcombe House keen to tidy up area and plant screening and encouraging him to consider landscaping improvement grant scheme.

Letters received objecting to the proposal from four households and from Islandwatch. Objection letters raise following issues:

This an inappropriate location for a business park.

If approved, request condition tyres are shredded and recycled rather than landfill.

Object in strongest possible terms to allowing such an enterprise in AONB which goes against landscape protection policies.

There are various operations which are noisy, keep unsociable hours and there are lots of cars on site.

Concerned any motor vehicle engineering must inevitably result in discharge of waste oil and detergents and believe there is no collection facility so concerns ground water being polluted.

Area should be redeveloped as an office based business park.

Concerned over traffic generation on local roads.

Believe once RTS ceased trading, planning permission was not going to be renewed.

RTS in last three years has been the most disruptive company of all with people racing around, noise etc seven days a week. Also spraying outside and use of air tools.

Reason for past permission was for RTS to serve local farmers but this not the case.

Also note RTS have a large number of cars in area and believe these intended for sale.

Have heard it is ATS tyres which would locate here.

Concerned application is retrospective.

Believe Enforcement Notice necessary to sort out other uses on site.

Evaluation

Full planning permission sought to continue using a unit within Bowcombe Meadows Business Park for the sale of car and commercial vehicle tyres, suspension, brake and exhaust systems. The unit occupies the central area of a substantial building which is of corrugated iron construction. Internally, there is a tyre and exhaust storage facilities together with two hydraulic ramps and other open working areas. Immediately adjacent this building on its western side is a portakabin which functions as an office.

Letter submitted by applicant with the original application and a further letter has been submitted from which the following points have been taken.

Purchased business known as Ring Trade Services in May 2000 unaware of condition attached to original consent.

Plan to continue to run business in same capacity as it has previously been. Operation is small scale with low volume turnover providing benefit to West Wight residents who find it convenient to visit Bowcombe as an alternative to negotiating traffic in Newport.

Also provide fast reliable service to all local farmers who find my location convenient as they can often get tractors with punctures to the depot for repair without needing to request a costly call-out.

Business has been in this location for about seven years and have large customer base.

Aware site is within AONB and done much to tidy and improve appearance of site. Over past six months, have moved scrap metal and cars and scrap tyres.

Plan now is there will never be more than one month's worth of scrap tyres on site at any time and plan to screen them in order to maintain appearance of site. Have also begun to have buildings painted.

Regarding question on outlets, have had slow response from farmers to my request for letters outlining work we carry out for them, suspect they are preoccupied with other matters at the time. Have received one letter from Baird Brothers as they are my main customer in the agricultural industry and enclose copy. They farm New Barn Farm, Shorwell. Other main farming customer is Idlecombe Farm also between Carisbrooke and Shorwell.

Another significant customer is Vectis Vintage Tractor and Engine Club which has 65 members mostly located in the West Wight area.

In addition to the above, received many requests for prices and availability from farmers everywhere.

I continue to run the business the same way as the previous operators did. The agricultural side of the business remains as important now as then and there are no plans to give it up. The main changes I have made to the business is the removal of the unsightly piles of scrap tyres and metal.

In addition to the agricultural work, there are also some commercial tyre sales with some of the customers on site and others further afield. These include West Wight Garden Services, Island Structural, Tony Bacon, Steve Evans Plant Hire, Steve Porter, ADC Electrical, Philips Fine Foods, S.D. Construction, J. West, Keith Morris, George Jenkins Transport and John Cotton Transport.

There are also less frequent customers in the commercial field and many of the taxi firms use Ravello.

Forms indicate that the business employees three fitters, that there are existing parking facilities directly outside with an estimate traffic flow of between five to ten vehicles per day (car and light commercial vehicles) with one lorry three times per week for deliveries. Forms indicate car and truck tyres to be taken away on a monthly basis and shredded before being placed in landfill site with all car components taken from scrap.

Determining factors with regard to this application are firstly, whether proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development in this locality and secondly, whether the operation has any highway implications.

With regard to the policy context, I consider that policies E8 (Employment Development in the Countryside) and C1 (Protection of Landscape) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) apply. Having considered the information submitted by the applicant, I am willing to accept that the current operator is running the business in the same spirit as the former operators and on that basis subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I believe that this use can be supported.

Regarding the second point on highway considerations, Members will note that the Highway Engineer has decided not to comment on this particular scheme.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I believe that on the basis that the current proposal continues to operate and function along the same lines as the earlier operative, then the scheme can be supported. I also consider a letter should be sent with the decision notice stressing that the Local Planning Authority will expect full compliance with the conditions imposed.

Recommendation - Approval (covering letter indicating Local Planning Authority expects full compliance with conditions).

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The permission hereby granted shall be for the benefit of Mr D.J. Bacon and Ravello Tyre Services Ltd only and for no other persons or company and when they vacate the premises to which this application relates then the use shall revert back to one associated with the general site which is B2 General Industrial Use.

Reason: This application has only been approved on the basis of the specific information put forward by the applicant as the Local Planning Authority would not countenance a general retail operation from this site which would be considered contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan, specifically Policy E8.

2 Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

3 The landscaping scheme shall be completed within 12 months of the date of this decision notice or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first five years shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the appearance of the development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

4 No vehicles or other articles shall be repaired, stored or displayed for sale on the site outside the building hereby approved and shown coloured red on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision or subsequently approved amendment.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

5 The use hereby approved shall be restricted to the following times of operation: 08.00 hours to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays 08.00 hours to 14.00 on Saturdays and at no times on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residential properties and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6 Within two months of the date of the decision notice, a plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority identifying the area to be set aside for the storage of scrap tyres. This plan shall include a reference to the maximum height for storage. Only this area as agreed will then be used for storage of scrap tyres hereafter and any excess tyres shall be removed from the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/07102/T P/01941/00 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 27/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566

Continued siting of portable building providing office accommodation and 2 areas of land for display and sales of cars and light commercial vehicles

Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 12, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight

Representations

Highway Engineer to be reported.

Four letters and a 19 signature petition objecting to proposal have been received from which the following points have been taken.

This not meant to be a retail site.

Site owner allowed operator to start up in breach of planning. Disappointed all this takes place with owner living on site.

Applicants attract a lot of people and vehicles at all hours seven days a week including bank holidays.

This is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to see so many cars, vans and portakabins is an eyesore.

Believe recent four car accident on the main road involved a car on a test run from this site.

Car sales is not a service to the rural community nor does it create any jobs for local people.

Concerned this will set a precedent encouraging other retail uses to locate here.

Retail sales means viewings in the evenings and weekends creating more vehicle movements.

Concerned this yet another retrospective application.

Concerned vehicle speed up and down yard and access road.

Believe site generally breaches current operating hours condition.

Evaluation

Full planning permission sought to continue operating a car and light commercial vehicle sales operation from part of the site which is known as Bowcombe Meadows Business Park and which is located approximately 2 kilometres southwest of Carisbrooke. The Business Park was formerly a plant hire depot but is now predominantly occupied by a range of B1, B2 and B8 activities.

Current proposal relates to a portakabin which lies on the southwest side of the central group of buildings together with an adjoining open area which is in use for the storage of vehicles. Although not included as part of the application, during site visit operator did indicate that he normally operates between 9.30 and 6.00 Mondays to Saturdays not opening Sundays unless by appointment. It was further suggested that although they have a number of cars at present, they mainly focus on vans and tend to take them out to customers to view.

The determining factors with regard to this application are firstly, whether proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regard to development in this locality and secondly highway considerations.

With regard to planning policy, the relevant UDP policies are E8, (Employment Development in Open Countryside) and C1 (Protection of Landscape) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). None of the retail policies apply to sales of motor vehicles. I believe this site has been considered in the context of the previous uses of its site and it was on that basis that the approved industrial uses were considered acceptable. Regarding the current proposal, I believe that this is introducing a totally new activity which potentially could have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area by virtue of the parking of a large number of vehicles which could be viewed from the road and from the Tennyson Trail above. Whilst I note the operating hours which the applicant has indicated verbally, I believe that this type of activity is likely to attract people seeking to view cars even when the office facility is closed. I would also suggest that people have a tendency to look for vehicles at weekends which would, by its nature, introduce activity on a Sunday at a time when the Local Planning Authority has sought to control other uses on site.

In considering this application, I do not consider that the use has any connection in terms of servicing the rural area, which is an argument put forward by a similar scheme by RTS Tyres.

Regarding the highway considerations, I have to yet to hear from the Highway Engineer.

On the basis that the use has already commenced, in addition to considering the current application unacceptable, I also consider that enforcement action should be authorised. In that context, I am conscious that the occupants of the adjoining unit have also commenced vehicle sales and have been waiting for the outcome of this application before deciding whether to submit an application. On the basis that Members reject this application, I therefore consider that the enforcement action authorised should be sufficiently broad to encapsulate this other unauthorised use.

Reason for Recommendation

Whilst the Local Planning Authority has accepted the adaption of the former plant depot for a range of business uses, having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to above, I consider that the introduction of vehicle sales is unacceptable for the reasons set out above and on that basis, I find myself unable to support the present application.

1. Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The application site is within an area designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal would therefore be detrimental by reason of the visual appearance of the vehicles stored in connection with the sales activity together with the activities associated with the operation of the use would be contrary to Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist further similar retail proposals within this site, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to affect the character of the area to the detriment of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2. Recommendation - That enforcement action be authorised requiring the cessation of the use of any vehicle sales within the Bowcombe Meadows Business Park area. Time period for compliance - three months.

TCP/07933/H P/00435/01 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown 1

Registration Date: 09/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Provision of raised timber decking & balustrading on Esplanade elevation Ocean Deck 50, High Street, Sandown, PO36 8AE

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications.

|Sandown Town Council has no objection.

Letter of objection from adjoining property owner on grounds of invasion of privacy, inaccurate plans and excessive height given the ability to look into the private property.

Letter of objection from son of adjoining property owner, also objecting on grounds of insufficient information and the fact that some work has already been implemented.

Environmental Health Officer raises concern about possible disturbance, suggesting condition to control hours of use and to preclude music or other entertainment on the deck.

Evaluation

Ocean Deck is one property of a terrace of properties running from Esplanade Road to Avenue slipway having frontage onto both High Street and Esplanade. On the Esplanade frontage of these properties there are areas set aside for car parking and commercial uses and this application relates to the property situated almost midway between the two junctions comprising a restaurant and service area with pedestrian access off the Esplanade. The development has commenced in part with a brick boundary wall constructed around the perimeter of the open area abutting the Esplanade with the exception of an access ramp running along the north eastern boundary. The boundary walls between properties are approximately 1.2 metres of flint cobbles and the wall recently constructed has been carried out to a height of about one metre/1.2 metres.

The intention is to construct a raised deck of timber covering nearly the whole of the service area up to and abutting the pavement, to a height of about 1.1 metres above pavement level, constructed in timber with timber posts spaced at approximately 2.4 metre centres and with a central flight of five steps aligning with the existing doors situated in the existing conservatory. The posts around the perimeter are proposed to be to a height of 1.8 metres above deck level, 2.9 metres above pavement level. The deck level proposed is shown to be level with the conservatory floor level.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, visual impact and effect on adjoining properties.

In terms of policy and principle, while the area is already used for commercial uses connected with restaurant service to the public, it is situated in an area on the Esplanade which is primarily commercial and therefore development which improves facilities is considered acceptable in principle. This site is one of several which serve the public along the Esplanade; other areas at the rear (fronting the Esplanade) of properties are used for the parking of vehicles. The raised deck would give a facility to the public to sit and enjoy the fayre on offer whilst enjoying the views over the beach. Its appearance would be acceptable, despite the increased height above pavement level.

However, the adjoining property to the north east has a private garden in the area between it and the Esplanade, the one exception to the remainder which are used for either commercial or parking purposes. Whilst this area is not very private due to its proximity to the Esplanade and lack of high screening, an elevated balcony will give greater opportunities for overlooking from the site. I consider that the inclusion of decorative, but translucent screens between the posts along the sides of the deck will effectively screen the adjoining property from persons who are seated on the deck. These screens would need to extend from deck level to the top of the posts, although they could be shaped to give a more pleasing appearance, but would need only to be on the north east and south west sides, thus leaving the frontage of the deck balustrading open for views to be maximised. On that basis, I consider the desirability of improving tourist facilities in this area and the need to maintain privacy to adjoining properties can be balanced.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, it is considered that the provision of decking in this tourist area as proposed would be acceptable and consistent with tourism and design policies as contained in the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 Submission of samples - S03

3 Before any further construction takes place on the site, details of screening to the full length of the north east and south west sides of the decking, to a height consistent with the top of the posts around the perimeter shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme of screening shall be completed prior to the raised decking area hereby approved being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

4 Details of any lighting of the decking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details before the development hereby approved is first brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

5 The use of the decking area (outside of the conservatory) shall be restricted to the hours of 0800 to 2300 on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and 0800 to 2230 hours on Sundays and recognised Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

6 No amplified music or performances shall be played or take place on the timber decking area or for the benefit of those using the timber decking area at any time without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

10.

TCP/08200/V P/00374/01 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton

Registration Date: 07/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823571

Telecommunications installation comprising 3.5m high pole mounted dual polar omni antenna with 3 associated equipment cabinets Albion Hotel/ Mermaid Café, Freshwater Bay, Freshwater

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer draws attention to the fact that site is within Heritage Coast and AONB and comments that Policy C4 of the UDP is quite restrictive in stating that development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast. Approvals will be granted for development which facilitates improved public access and enjoyment of the Heritage Coast for informal open air recreation. She also makes reference to PPG20 which advises:

"there is no reason to expect such areas to accommodate new commercial development that could be located in land."

She considers that, having regard to the current proliferation of aerials (both TV and communication) in the vicinity, one more is unlikely to be significant, and the location of the proposal is reasonably well screened from several vantage points. Furthermore, from the AONB perspective, she does not believe that the addition of one more aerial will have a detrimental effect on the landscape of the area, and would therefore not object, on the basis that conditions are attached restricting the installation of any further aerials at this location. However, if this is not possible, she would be concerned that a precedent might be set and others will follow.

English Nature consider that proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and therefore, in accordance with Regulation 48 (1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, and (c) Regulations) 1994 will not require appropriate assessment. In terms of the wider Nature Conservation Interests of the adjacent SSSI's, English Nature consider that proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect on these areas and therefore have no further comments to make regarding the application.

Two letters received from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Mast will be intrusive and offence in Area of Natural Beauty.

Perceived health risk may deter tourists using the bay.

Unobtrusive site exists and is already in use at Afton Park Farm.

Site is located between two stretches of heritage coastal zone.

Proposed development would be detrimental to character and amenities of the area.

One letter received in support of proposal stating that refurbishment and modernisation of facilities are desirable in the interest of attracting tourists and holiday makers to the hotel and proposal will also hopefully improve signal in this particular locality. However, they comment that, bearing in mind Freshwater Bay is within a sensitive area, impact of proposal could be softened if mast was designed with appearance of flagpole.

Evaluation

Proposal involves mounting of antenna on roof of Albion Hotel which overlooks the bay. Antenna would have height of approximately 2 metres and diameter of approximately 150mm and would be mounted on pole fixed to wall of building, projecting approximately 3.5 metres above level of flat roof and approximately 2 metres above roof of adjacent tank room. Proposal will also involve installation of three cabinets, to be affixed to wall adjacent mount supporting antenna, the largest of which would have a height of approximately 900mm, a width of 600mm and depth of 500mm.

The applicant is a Telecommunications Code System Operator and benefits from extensive permitted development rights granted to them by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. These rights would include proposals for the erection of a mast or tower up to a height of 15 metres or where it is proposed to site or construct an equipment cabinet with a cubic content greater that 2.5 cubic metres. However, the permitted development rights do not apply to certain categories of development on land within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In the case of the current proposal, the site is located within an AONB and, therefore, planning permission is required.

The determining factors in considering the current application are whether the proposed installation would be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the amenities and character of the area and whether the technical constraints associated with this type of development and the obligations imposed on the operator by their licence outweighs any planning objection to the proposal.

In accordance with Policy D8 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan, planning applications for satellite antenna and other telecommunication equipment on buildings will only be approved where they are installed so as to minimise the effect on the appearance of the building and/or the character and visual amenity of the local environment. Proposals will be resisted on:

(a) prominent locations;

(b) listed buildings;

(c) sites where an over-proliferation of similar equipment would result.

In accordance with the policy, the favourable consideration of sites covered by categories (a) and (c) will only be given as a last resort in exceptional cases, where such a location is unavoidable for technical and operational reasons. Proposals for telecommunications equipment on listed buildings will be refused unless the Council is satisfied that proposals preserve or enhance the character of the building. Wherever possible, dual or communal use of facilities will be encouraged.

Policy U17 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan deals with telecommunications installations in general and is considered relevant to current proposal. In particular, the policy seeks to resist such development within designated Areas of Landscape, Nature Conservation or Scientific or Historic Interest. In such areas, this type of development will not be permitted unless there is a compelling technical justification and no suitable site or sites outside the designation. The policy requires that, where no practical alternative location is available and a new structure is necessary, the site chosen and the design is visually and technically the least harmful that can be achieved.

Site is located within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast where Policies C2 and C4 apply respectively. In accordance with Policy C2, applications for development within the AONB will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and satisfy the criteria set out in the policy. In accordance with Policy C4, within the defined Heritage Coast of Hamstead and Tennyson, development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast. Approvals will be granted for development which facilitates improved public access and enjoyment of the Heritage Coast for informal open air recreation.

Advice and guidance on telecommunications development is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications." The guidance note highlights the benefits of modern telecommunications systems in terms of the local community and the national economy and the Government's general policy on telecommunications to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems together with its commitment to environmental objectives, including well established policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The guidance note acknowledges that telecommunications development may require particular locations in order to work effectively and that such locations may be prominent locations which pose challenges to policies for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality in urban areas. Therefore, Planning Authorities are encouraged to develop an understanding of the needs and technical problems of telecommunications development and are advised to take into account all material considerations and that applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modern telecommunications.

In addition, the Guidance Note offers advice on ways on which the impact of modern telecommunications development can be restricted to a minimum and states as follows:

"The Government attaches considerable importance to keeping to a minimum the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts, and of the sites for such installations. The sharing of masts will help to achieve this, where practicable, as will the use of existing buildings to site new antennae."

Proposals of this nature invariably attract concerns regarding radiation safety and this is a matter which has been, and continues to be, the subject of extensive research. In particular, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is responsible for advising the Government on the possible adverse health effects of radiation, including the non-ionising electromagnetic radiation associated with telecommunications systems. Following extensive research, the NRPB has produced guidelines on exposure levels to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation associated with telecommunications apparatus which are designed to prevent the known acute health effects (heating of the body) which can occur when exposed to such radiation. It is understood that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will expect telecommunications and broadcasting companies to comply with the guidelines produced by the NRPB and that compliance is also a requirement of the licence granted to the Telecommunication Code System Operators. Advice from the NRPB and HSE clearly indicates that the perceived health risk which may be associated with this type of equipment is not proven.

The HSE have previously been approached for comments on mobile phone base stations and have advised that they would not wish to be consulted on each installation, and neither would they respond unless in their opinion, there was a need. The HSE would only expect to become involved if there was evidence to suggest that the owners/installers of the mast were disregarding health and safety guidelines. The HSE advises that for locations accessible to the public and around such installations, field strengths can be expected to be below, and usually well below NRPB guidelines. It is the responsibility of the telephone companies to ensure that their installations are safe and the HSE is not aware of any companies breaching the NRPB guidelines.

Whilst it is accepted that the perceived health risk associated with this type of development would be a material consideration when determining any planning application, in view of the advice from the NRPB, HSE and other associated bodies, and the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that mobile phones and the base stations pose a long-term public health hazard, it is one which I consider should be given appropriate weight and which would not presently provide a sustainable reason for refusal. In this respect, Members' attention is drawn to a recent appeal decision from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions involving the erection of a 25 metre high telecommunications tower with associated equipment which was refused planning permission by the Winchester City Council. In determining the appeal, factors taken into account by the appointed Inspector included visual impact, the need for the development and health implications. With regard to the latter, the comments of the Inspector reinforce advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications" which clearly advises that radiation safety is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. In particular, she commented as follows:

"Whilst I must take the concerns of local people into account, I must set those against scientific knowledge about the effects."

Furthermore, she advised that:

"There are established standards to restrict exposure to known thermal effects of radio frequency EMFs. Code system operators must observe these and the HSE has powers under other legislation to ensure that those likely to be exposed are protected."

Referring to the findings of the European Commission Expert Group, she states:

"They find that there is no convincing scientific evidence that EMFs from mobile phones and their base stations poses a long-term public health hazard."

The comments of the Inspector clearly indicate that, in absence of any convincing scientific evidence that mobile phones and their base stations pose a long-term public health hazard, this should not be cited as a reason for refusal.

Subsequent to the determination of the aforementioned appeal, the findings of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) has been published and the Government has issued a press release in this respect. The group was commissioned by the Government to carry out a comprehensive assessment of existing research following concerns raised by the general public regarding the perceived hazards to health associated with telecommunications technology. On the issue of adverse health effects the group concluded that:

"..... the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines." (Paragraph 5.269 - Stewart Report)

The report does highlight some biological effects which may occur with mobile phone use, although these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. The report acknowledged that there is a need for further research and this forms part of the recommendations of the group. In particular, on the basis of the research carried out by the IEGMP, they concluded:

"..... that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential health effects, and that gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach." (Paragraph 6.39 - Stewart Report)

The group recommended that, as part of a precautionary approach, the guidelines for exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields used by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) should be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRB guidelines. However, the group indicated that they were not convinced of the need to incorporate the ICNIRP guidelines into statutes as they are liable to change as more scientific information about the health effects becomes available.

In general terms, I do not consider that the report provides any additional information which would enable the Authority to cite radiation safety as a reason for refusal of planning permission. During the summer of 2000, the Minister for Planning and Housing advised in a letter to Council Leaders that until new measures and guidelines are introduced, Local Planning Authorities should continue to deal with planning applications for telecommunications on the basis of the current legislative arrangements and policy guidance.

Since publication of the report, appeals against refusal of permission have produced mixed results and guidance, particularly in respect of the perceived health risk associated with this type of development. In two cases, involving 8 metre high telecommunications masts having the appearance of telegraph poles refused on grounds that there was real public concerned about the proximity of the installation, to dwellings, Inspectors noted that compliance with guidelines in the Stewart Committee Report meant that any objection on health grounds had to be regarded as not founded on a full understanding of the effects of an electromagnetic radiation although that did not mean that it was an unjustified planning objection. The Inspector concluded that the presence of the masts, positioned approximately 13 metres from the nearest property, would be constant reminder of occupiers' concerns about their well-being and would materially diminish their quality of life and amenity.

In a subsequent appeal involving a similar type of installation, an Inspector accepted that residents' anxieties about health effects were a valid issue. The Inspector noted that public fears about the possible health effects are capable in principle of being a material consideration. Since the appellants had not provided information to confirm that the proposal met the guidelines set down by ICNIRP, he found little basis for being able to conclude that local fears had been met. He held that the anxiety about the health effects of the proposal materially contributed to a general loss of amenity for residents. While meeting need for better radio coverage was important, he ruled that it did not override this concern nor the visual harm to the surroundings.

On 16 March 2001, the DETR issued a news release providing details of changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts proposed by the Government following a public consultation exercise. The news release highlights a range of precautionary actions taken forward by the Government including measures to ensure that all mobile phones and base stations meet the guidelines of ICNIRP for limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields which are tougher than the guidelines issued by the NRPB. In this respect, the news release indicates that mobile phone operators have agreed to ensure that all existing base stations meet these guidelines. In addition, they have agreed that all planning applications for new development will be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance with ICNIRP guidelines.

On the issue of health, the Planning Minister has stated as follows:

"It is the Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. I have outlined the measures being taken on a precautionary basis. In the Government's view, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority, in processing an application, to consider the health aspects further. This view will be reiterated in our revised Planning Policy Guidance."

With regard to current proposal, applicant's agent has provided written confirmation that the installation will comply with the ICNIRP guidelines.

The operator has been granted a licence by the Government to build and operate a public wireless telecommunications network. In accordance with the requirements of the licence, the operator is required to ensure that all reasonable demands for the service are capable of being met. The operator has identified a need to improve network coverage in the Freshwater Bay area which it seeks to achieve through current proposal.

A previous submission sought permission for a freestanding installation having an overall height of approximately 8 metres and appearance similar to that of a telegraph pole which was to be located on a grass verge area on the northern side of Military Road, close to its junction with Southdown Road. This application was withdrawn due to an apparent dispute over the ownership of the area of land on which it was to be situated. However, information provided in support of proposal included computer predictions providing an indication of the network coverage provided in the area by existing installations and that which was likely to be achieved from the proposed installation. This information clearly indicated that the area within and to the north of Freshwater Bay is presently without adequate network coverage. However, it is understood that whilst the computer predictions take account of the topography of the area, they do not take account of buildings and trees and, therefore, represent the best case scenario.

The applicant presently provides network coverage throughout much of the Island principally with what is referred to as macrocell base stations. When dealing with applications for such installations, Members have previously expressed concern with regard to the future network requirements of the operators and requested further information in this respect which was the subject of report considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting held on 14 September 1999. In response to the request for this information, the applicant in respect of the current submission produced a report which included information derived from a drive test which involved transmitting a signal over the network and driving a preplanned route in order to identify areas where no signal coverage was provided or where that which existed was inadequate to ensure that the operator could meet all reasonable demands for the service. Satisfactory coverage is necessary to ensure that the company can satisfy requirements of the licence granted to them by the Government. As a result, the company has made a number of submissions to the Council, including the current application with a view to improving its network by deploying what are referred to as microcell base stations. Unlike the larger macrocell base stations, these are generally low powered and are required to provide localised signal coverage, to increase the quality of in building coverage, especially on the lower floors of multi-storey buildings that cannot be covered sufficiently by macrocells and to increase call capacity on the network.

It is understood that siting of base stations is generally constrained by a number of factors, including topography of the surrounding area and radio frequency planning, the latter presenting more of a problem when seeking to infill gaps in existing network coverage. Furthermore, it is understood that, due to these factors and the low powered nature of microcells, exact siting is somewhat more critical. In particular, it is understood that such installations need to be located within or close to the area in which the operator is seeking to improve the network coverage. Information which accompanied previous submission indicated that possibility of siting the installation further east on slightly higher ground was explored but was discounted on grounds that it would be more intrusive on the skyline. Furthermore, they indicated that locating an installation further north on the A3055 would be impractical and would not provide the coverage required. In this respect, whilst an objector has drawn attention to an existing installation at Afton Park Farm, it is likely that sharing of this facility would require redevelopment of the site with a more substantial structure and the provision of a more powerful base station.

Whilst application site is within Heritage Coast, the immediate locality is clearly not undeveloped and I consider that installation of a relatively small antenna as proposed would have minimal impact, particularly having regard to size of building on which it is to be situated. Furthermore, mounting of antenna on an existing structure will clearly obviate necessity for freestanding base station or redevelopment of nearest installation with a more substantial structure which would be likely to have a more significant impact on surrounding area and complies with Government guidance which seeks to encourage use of existing structures to site antenna. Whilst I note concerns expressed by AONB Officer regarding possible proliferation of antenna at the site and request that condition is imposed on any permission preventing this, I do not consider such a condition would be reasonable or necessary as further antennae would require planning permission. Should further proposals for additional antennae be submitted, each case would be considered on its merits and the cumulative impact would be a material consideration in determining such proposals.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate to all material considerations referred to in the evaluation section of this report, I am satisfied that installation of antenna as proposed will have minimal impact on appearance of building and will not detract from visual amenities and character of locality. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal conflicts with policies contained in the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance with this permission shall be removed from the land on which it is situated as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunications purposes and the site shall be restored to its former condition.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policy U17 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/09518/D P/00422/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle 1

Registration Date: 19/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Extension at third floor/ roof level to enlarge deck house; retention of flag pole New York House, 12 Castle Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO31 7QY

Representations

Town Council raise no objection to the application.

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

Two letters received from local residents objecting to the application on the following grounds:

The retention of the flagpole is causing a nuisance with noise made by wind rustling through the rigging and the noise of flags particularly during the night and also the halyards hanging.

The proposed extension to the deckhouse will result in an invasion of privacy in that it provides a line of sight to the living area windows and also the private terrace/sitting room of "The Pent House" in Castle Road. This is felt to be intrusive and unnecessary addition to the skyline within the Conservation Area and particularly unnecessary as there already exists a quite adequate observation lounge.

The proposed roof extension would result in loss of amenity and overlooking of garden to the dwelling known as The Stables in Church Road.

Comment is also made that work commenced prior to planning consent being granted and should comply with stringent planning guidelines.

Evaluation

This application relates to a substantial dwelling situated on the western side of Castle Road and forms one of a group of traditional dwellings of mixed size and character within the designated Conservation Area. The existing building has accommodation on three floors with an additional observation room/deckhouse at roof level. There is a good size rectangular garden at the rear of the property with an overall depth of approximately 30 metres and there are residential properties to either side and to the rear of the application site. The property known as The Stables is situated to the northwest of the rear garden and is accessed from Church Road.

The submitted details indicate the construction of a small flat roofed extension to the rear (western) side of the existing deckhouse on the roof of the property. The extension would measure approximately 2.5 metres by 2 metres and would have a flat roof which is a continuation of the existing roof of the deckhouse structure. The extension would have a traditional window in the southern elevation overlooking the existing flat roof and a small "porthole" window is shown in the western elevation which looks down the garden. The proposals also indicate construction of a new chimney above the former chimney breast which would project an overall one metre above the roof of the deckhouse.

The application also includes retention of a flagpole and rigging structure on the roof of the property with an overall height of some 3.3 metres above the parapet of the property.

The building is a substantial traditional structure with rendered elevations and prominent bay windows on the road frontage and is of attractive appearance but is not listed as being of architectural or historic value. The building is also situated within the designated Conservation Area. The determining factors are therefore considered to be the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the existing building and the Conservation Area, together with the effect of the works on the amenities on the occupiers of nearby properties.

With regard to the first issue, it is acknowledged that the deckhouse structure is not particularly attractive having a flat roof construction and projects above the main parapet of the existing building. However, due to the design, height and location of the property, the deckhouse structure is not readily visible in the surrounding area, although it can be seen from the rear of Church Road. The submitted details show construction of a small extension at the rear of the existing deckhouse structure which would not readily visible from the surrounding area and is not considered to have any greater visual impact in the locality than the structure which currently exists.

Members will note that comments have been made regarding loss of amenity and privacy as a result of overlooking from windows in the new structure. The only window which could overlook nearby properties is a small porthole window measuring approximately 400mm in diameter. As this is a secondary window serving the deckhouse extension, it is suggested that this window should be fixed shut and obscure glazed to avoid any direct overlooking and this matter could be covered by condition if the application is approved.

The construction of a traditional masonry chimney on the roof of the building is considered to be a visual improvement and would reinstate a former feature of the building.

With regard to the flagpole, Members are advised that this already been erected and is a considerable structure incorporating a main flagpole with a cross beam and the whole structure is supported by traditional rigging. Members will be aware, however, that many properties in the Cowes area do have flagpoles or similar structures either at roof level or projecting from the elevations of the properties. A similar structure in fact exists on a property to the east and there are various other flagpoles in the locality.

Although the comments made by local residents are noted, I do not consider that the flagpole is uncharacteristic of the area and in fact, reflects the marine character of this part of the Old Town.

It is acknowledged that there can be some noise as a result of wind blowing through the rigging, but this would not be dissimilar to the effect from other similar structures in the locality and not in my opinion sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

Reason 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 retention of the flagpole and the construction of a small extension to the existing deckhouse, together with reconstruction of a masonry chimney on this property are considered to be acceptable under the terms of Policies D1 (Design), H7 (Extension and Alterations of Existing Properties) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan. The effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties can be minimised by imposition of conditions to ensure that the porthole window is fixed shut and obscure glazed and any disturbance as a result of the flagpole structure is not considered to be so great as to warrant refusal of the application in this case. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension 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 Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

3 The porthole window in the southwest elevation of the deckhouse extension shall be permanently fixed and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

12. TCP/12553/G P/00291/01 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 27/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Conversion of roof space to form 1 flat including provision of dormer windows on front and rear elevations Rychris Court, Victoria Avenue, Shanklin

This application is the subject of a report at the request of the Local Member.

Representations

Shanklin Town Council object on grounds of fact that development has already been implemented.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no implications.

One letter of objection from local resident on grounds of ground stability due to demolition of the former garage, the fact that there is a row of mature conifer trees along the common boundary between the application site and a property in Florence Road which is not shown on the plan and suggesting that the development as proposed 'by-passes' the limit on density originally imposed by the Planning Department, that the development has proceeded in advance of planning permission being granted and on grounds of excessive height and that dormer windows in rear elevation overlook his property and result in loss of privacy.

Evaluation

Outline consent was granted for six flats on this site in July 1999 which was a negotiated reduction from the original submission of nine units. Nine units was considered to be an excessive development and the plans submitted for guidance purposes at that time were also considered to be an inappropriate design. A reserved matters application for a three storey block of six flats was subsequently approved in January 2000 indicating a design which was felt to be appropriate in the street scene and consistent with adjoining development in terms of mass and scale.

The development was subsequently implemented in accordance with the permission for six units, but during construction alterations to the roof by the inclusion of a dormer window and a gable window on the front elevation with two dormer windows on the rear were included, thus facilitating the addition of a further unit within the roof space. These additions do not change the scale and mass of the building, nor do they alter the height and general shape of the roof, with the exception of the inclusion of those dormers previously mentioned.

Retrospective consent is sought for the inclusion of the seventh unit within the roof space and determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, density, design and general appearance and effect on adjoining properties.

Residential use of the site has been granted in the past and implemented. There is therefore no objection in policy and principle terms.

In terms of density, this is a relatively central site where one would anticipate comparatively dense developments. The additional unit within the roof space does not change the mass of the building and although it would result in an additional dwelling unit, it is not at the expense of the quality of the existing, since it utilises the roof space, providing living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms, one of which is en-suite. This is a brown field site which is currently being redeveloped with residential units and the proposal constitutes an increase in density which aligns with Central Government to policy to increase developments within urban areas and utilise land more efficiently. In design terms and in terms of the external appearance of the building, it is not felt to be inappropriate.

In terms of effect on adjoining properties, the two additional windows in the rear elevation are the only ones likely to have any effect on adjoining properties, but due to their elevation and the fact that they are bedroom windows, I do not consider a substantial loss of privacy will occur.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the utilisation of the roof space for an additional unit of accommodation is an acceptable form of development which will not adversely increase the density of development on the site nor adversely affect the design and appearance of the building nor decrease privacy to the adjoining properties to a degree which would warrant refusal and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

13.

TCP/16040/D P/00333/01 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 01/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Revised design to approved dwelling; formation of culvert to stream land between 16 and 20, Church Road, Shanklin

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Shanklin Town Council raise concern about possible blockage of culvert.

Council's Drainage Engineer points out that it is Council's and Environment Agency's policy not to allow any culverting of streams, watercourses and ditches under Section 23(1)(b) of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

Environment Agency confirm no objection in principle, but confirm presumption against the culverting of watercourses.

Council's Ecology Officer points out that building works and associated import of inert material have clearly caused considerable damage to the ground and vegetation, but that trees on the site do not appear to have been damaged. Continuity of tree canopy through the chine remains and it is vital to support red squirrel population. Saw no evidence of a badger sett within the application site, but acknowledges extensive disturbance of the chine sides through import of material.

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of destruction of the wildlife habitat in a Conservation Area, loss of trees, pollution. Objecting specifically to the inclusion of a culvert and raising of the ground level above it. Suggests that a retaining wall should be built parallel to the stream overcoming any principal ground movement problems. One objector raises concern that it is the ultimate intention to access the site with vehicles from Priory Road along the side of the chine. Other objections include the pitch and size of the roof, the dwelling is overpowering and out of character and also objecting to the development substantially occurring prior to consent being granted.

Further letter from the agents confirms temporary nature of access on south east side of the Chine, intention to reinstate following completion, including a landscaping scheme of site.

Evaluation

In June 1996 planning permission was granted for a chalet bungalow on this site subject to conditions. In February 2000 an amendment was accepted which essentially included a thatched roof and minor fenestration changes. Upon receipt of further proposals for amendments, it was decided that cumulatively the proposed changes were sufficiently different from the original permission to warrant submission of a fresh application.

Those amended proposals are the subject of this application and essentially they include the substitution of the later accepted thatched roof for plain clay tiles and minor fenestration changes which mostly affect the rear (south east) elevation. The proposal also includes a raised terrace immediately at the rear of the building. Retrospective consent is sought for the culverting of the stream.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, design, materials and visual impact, matters relating to access and parking and specifically, their relation to the engineering works, including the culverting of the stream which had been carried out and which are continuing at the rear of the building.

In terms of policy and principle, a dwelling of similar proportion and design has already been approved on this site and is well advanced and the overall length, depth and height are the same as that previously approved. I can see no reason in principle which would warrant a different decision.

In terms of the design and external appearance, the changes essentially envisaged are limited to final fenestration changes and materials to be used for roof finish, the omission of one chimney and the inclusion of pitched dormer roofed windows as opposed to eyebrows as included in the previously approved thatched roof. Bearing in mind the thatched roof was accepted as an amendment to the original consent granted in 1996 which showed slates/tiles, I do not consider reversion to a plain tiled roof would be an inappropriate move.

Access arrangements for both pedestrians and vehicles are as previously approved. That is to say a single, narrow pedestrian access off Church Road to the front door with a vehicular access off Priory Road serving a small parking area accessed only by pedestrians from the rear of the dwelling over the stream. Subject to conditions, as before, no objections are seen. The matter of the culvert and tipped material to form a pedestrian path from the car parking area off Priory Road to the dwelling are the main matters of contention.

Eight metres of 1.2 metre diameter culverting have been installed on the north eastern extent of the site where the stream flows through the application site. This culvert has also been buried in approximately 1.2 metres of fill, thus raising the ground level above the culvert by a maximum of 2.5 metres above the bed of the stream.

It is not normal practice of the Council or the Environment Agency to accept culverting of streams, brooks or drainage ditches, except where needs of access are considered to override that requirement. In this instance, culverting the stream is not essential to form access and certainly not a length of 8 metres. However, the Environment Agency has not raised an objection, but do point out normal practice in not accepting culverting of streams.

In summary, I consider that the dwelling is acceptable subject to the same conditions as previously imposed. Although objections have been raised by third parties to the culverting of the stream and the associated tipping of materials to form the pedestrian access, in the event of no objection from the Council's Ecology Officer and Environment Agency, these objections appear to be unfounded.

The Council's Ecology Officer, whilst acknowledging that damage has occurred to the environment, does not conclude that lasting damage has occurred to the habitat for squirrels etc and in time, regeneration of the area will no doubt occur. The Environment Agency has not raised objecting to the culverting of the stream and therefore despite the fact that consent is sought retrospectively, I can find no reason to withhold permission.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, the proposed dwelling, culverting of the stream and land filling to form a pedestrian access between the parking area and the dwelling are considered satisfactory and are in accordance with Policies G4, T1, D2 and H5 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Construction of the building hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in materials and finished in accordance with a schedule to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

3 The front boundary wall of the site shall be maintained over the whole length of the site's boundary with Church Road with the exception of the pedestrian access to be formed at the south western extent of the frontage in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

4 Space for the parking of two cars for the existing property known as Dale Cottage and the proposed dwelling shall be provided and maintained within the area shown edged red accessed from Priory Road as shown on the approved plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety.

5 No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding one metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown coloured yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

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

6 Provision of turning area - K40

7 The finished ground floor level of the dwelling hereby approved shall be 0.42 metres below road level in accordance with the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area.

8 No further development shall take place until details of earthworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading and moulding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed moulding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. 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 Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

14.

TCP/17998/R P/00252/01 Parish/Name: Rookley Ward: Gatcombe Godshill and Rookley

Registration Date: 21/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. R. Jolliffe Tel: (01983) 823593

Pair of double garages land rear of Coppitts Green, Niton Road, Rookley, Ventnor

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Rookley Parish Council recommend refusal as they believe that the addition of a pair of garages would constitute over-development and that the development would have an adverse impact on the village green and surrounding area. Also concerns were raised over future conversion to residential.

Three letters have been received from neighbouring properties and can be summarised as follows:

Over-development.

Impact on the green and character of the village.

Conversion to residential.

Evaluation

The application relates to an area of land situated between Niton Road and Main Road to the south of Rookley Village Green. Permission is sought for a pair of double garages located to the east of the plot approximately 1.5 metres from the northern boundary.

Planning permission was granted in May 1998 for a bungalow with alterations to the access from Niton Road (now constructed). A subsequent outline application for a dwelling to the east of the bungalow was refused in July 2000 on grounds that it was considered to be detrimental to the amenities of the area.

Determining factors in considering the application are the impact the garages would have on the surrounding area and the possibility of over development. Policy D1 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan covers design standards and states that development will only be permitted where it maintains or enhances the quality of the built environment.

The proposed garages are to be situated in the shared garden of the 2 properties known as Coppits Green and High Trees. The garages are to be brick built under a pitched roof with doors to both the west and south elevations and 2 windows to the north. The garages would not be visible from the east due to a 2 metre high close boarded fence or the west due to the property, Coppits Green. However the main consideration would be the impact of the garages on the Village Green to the north. Currently the boundary to the green consists of a 1 metre high post and wire fence with new planting having taken place on green. I believe that a condition requiring on site planting to the northern boundary would minimise the effect of the garages on the green.

Regarding concerns with over development, it should be noted that, had the site not been a joint curtilage, the garages could have been built separately as "permitted development". Concerns over the future change to residential are not considered to be relevant to this application as such a change would require the benefit of planning permission.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the application does not represent over-development and, with appropriate screening, the effects on the surrounding area would be minimal. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02

3 No development shall commence on the site until details of screen planting to the northern boundary have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and to comply with Policy D3 (landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

4 A 1.8 metre hedge shall be maintained in perpetuity to the northern boundary.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and to comply with Policy D3 (landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

15.

TCP/19175/R P/00367/01 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: Osborne

Registration Date: 08/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Alterations & change of use of former sales office to gymnasium Medina View East Cowes Marina, Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32

Representations

East Cowes Town Council consider the site inappropriate for a gymnasium and is concerned that parking and road access is insufficient.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment in respect of this application, but states the following:

"However, I would request 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 this department of the employment of persons at work (this duty extends to any tenants the applicant might have who also employ persons). Details of how to notify this section may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department."

Evaluation

Application relates to a single storey structure which currently functions as a sales office in respect of Phase 3 of the Barratts development which is accessed off Kingston Road. Building is located within the narrow section of the site between that area which relates to Kingston Road and that area which relates to the River Medina. The building measures 11.3 metres by 5.5 metres and is finished in precast concrete rendered panels under red tiled hipped roof. The building is single storey and accommodates a lobby, toilet and kitchen facilities, with the remaining space being set aside for gymnasium use.

Applicants state that the gymnasium will be for the sole use of the private residence of Meadow View and will be managed by Countrywide Property Services who are managing the scheme on behalf of Barratts. Immediately to the south east of the building is a parking area which provides a total of fourteen parking spaces. The proposal also includes for timber posts with rope railings on the north western side of the building accommodating a timber deck and paved areas on the south east side of the building forming the entrance to the gymnasium.

I consider that this proposal represents good use of this building and will provide a valuable facility for residents. I would concur with the East Cowes Town Council's s comments had this gymnasium been for general public use. However, as the applicants have stated, it is entirely for residents only. I consider it is acceptable subject to a condition covering this issue.

I am advised by the applicants that the gymnasium building itself will be managed by a specific management company which is being set up by the developers to manage all communal areas in respect of this site and is seen by the developers as a community facility which, in their experience, residents appreciate.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section to this report, I am of the opinion that the use of this building for gymnasium purposes conditional upon its use being restricted to residents only given the building's location, is acceptable. I do not consider there will be a parking problem because of this conditional use, given that most patrons will be walking to the gymnasium as opposed to using their vehicles.

1. Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 The gymnasium facility hereby approved shall be restricted for use by the private residents of the Phase 3 residential development off Kingston Road only.

Reason: To ensure minimal use of limited parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation

That a letter be sent to the applicants advising them that under Section 49 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 they must notify the Health and Safety Section of this department of the employment of persons at work (this duty extends to any tenants the applicant might have who also employ persons). Details of how to notify this section may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department.

16.

TCP/21354/K P/00284/01 Parish/Name: St. Helens Ward: St Helens

Registration Date: 27/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Covered yard for cattle & feeding purposes Fakenham Farm, Eddington Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 1XS

Representations

St Helens Parish Council originally submitted holding objection on grounds of development outside development envelope for St Helens and also between strategic gap between St Helens and Nettlestone. Members raised other issues relating to compliance with conditions. However, they were advised that these conditions were not yet enforceable, as the previous planning consent had not yet commenced. Any further comments will be reported at meeting.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comment to make on this application, as application is merely for covering an existing yard already used by animals and situation is unlikely to change. Apart from a visit made over twelve months ago in respect of previous application, there has been no cause to investigate these premises.

One letter has been received from adjoining residential occupier objecting to proposal on grounds that original consent for agricultural use excluded housing of livestock. Limitations placed on use of building is due to proximity of them to adjoining residential property. Reference is also made to other buildings erected close to residential boundary which do not require planning approval to house wildfowl. Since their construction, vermin level has dramatically increased and Pest Control Officers have been called to residents every year. Having viewed applicant's plans for working farm for approval, writer is under impression that erection of new for housing additional livestock would be situated greater than 400 metres from dwelling. Had he known that it was intention to use existing buildings, grave concerns over hygiene issues would have been highlighted earlier.

Evaluation

Application relates to agricultural land and buildings situated on western side of Eddington Road on northern outskirts of St Helens. Site is served by existing gravel track and is characterised by mature hedge along Eddington Road frontage.

Briefly, relevant planning consents involve building approved under prior notification procedure in September 1992 and barn extension approved in March 1997. Subsequently, approval granted on appeal for mobile home in January 1999 was subject to temporary consent expiring 31 January 2002. More recently, application seeking change of use to working farm for tourism and educational purposes refused in December 1997. Subsequent submission with additional supporting information refused in January 1999. Further submission for working farm for tourism and educational purposes approved in April 2000.

This application seeks consent to construct 'L' shaped building on north western corner of complex to provide covered yard for cattle and feeding purposes. Externally building would be finished in Yorkshire boarding above concrete block work walls.

There is no objection in principle to further infill building which would help fully enclose existing farmyard area. Design and materials used are considered acceptable for agricultural purposes and given decision in May 2000 for working farm and fact that adjoining buildings will be used for housing of animals, no reasonable objection can be raised to enclosure of yard for feeding of animals.

Reasons for Recommendation

Proposal involving small building which infills gap in existing farmyard courtyard complex is considered appropriate in visual terms and will have no due adverse effect on locality or surrounding residential occupiers. Proposal is therefore seen to be in accordance with Policies D1 and C18 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan and accordingly approval is recommended.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

17.

TCP/21596/B P/01855/00 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Mount Joy

Registration Date: 04/12/2000 - Full Planning Permission

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

Alterations & 2 storey extension to form 10 additional bedrooms, day room and associated facilities 3 Watergate Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight

Representations

Application has been the subject of twelve letters of objection, seven from residents of Watergate Road, including a total of three letters from the adjoining owner to the south, four from residents of Sydney Close and one from a Cowes resident who has interest in the property opposite the site. Points of objection and comment are summarised as follows.

Proposal will result in an increase use of the premises as a nursing/care home thus causing general additional disturbance to nearby neighbours.

Extension is excessive in size, mass and scale, adversely affecting the integrity of the building's Victorian character.

Extension, because of its mass and scale, will impinge on the generally spacious nature of the area with particular reference to the large individual Victorian dwelling.

Proposal will have an over-dominant effect on the adjacent properties particularly the property to the south resulting in an overlooking and loss of privacy situation.

The increased use will result in additional traffic generation using an existing road system which is inadequate both in width and has no footpath provision.

The property has insufficient area to cater for the additional parking requirements which this proposal will inevitably generate.

General concern that the overall footprint of the extension and its inevitable impact on adjoining properties particularly those which adjoin the rear boundary of the site (east boundary) which fronts Sydney Close further to the east.

Proposal will result in a further intensification of commercial uses in an area which is mainly residential.

Occupier of immediate neighbouring property to the south has written a total of three letters and visited the offices on numerous occasions expressing particular concerns at this proposal and its likely effect on his existing environment. Despite applicant's architects producing additional drawings following a specific visit to his premises, the neighbour continues to be concerned overlooking, not of only his house and his garden, but of other properties on all sides making particular reference to the reliance on deciduous and other trees to screen the proposal. The writer makes the following statement:

"..... if accepted, it can only damage quite seriously the environmental rights, needs and pleasures of all the parties adjacent to or near the enterprise known as Merrie Meade while also establishing a most undesirable precedent for the Island's essential policies."

Joint Registration and Inspection Unit comments as follows:

"We understand this phase of development is part of her Architect's plan to further improve facilities of the home. We are satisfied that the applicant understands that the design of the extension must meet the requirements of the Joint Registration and Inspection Unit and further enhance the home for existing users."

Social Services Department comments as follows:

"The Directorate would support in principle any proposal which would both enhance existing residential care facilities and increase the available resource. There has been an accelerating loss of residential care beds in recent months and we welcome proposal which would increase the number of residential beds in the Newport area."

Highway Engineer raises no objection.

Evaluation

Application relates to a nursing home known as Merrie Meade Residential Care Home situated on eastern side of Watergate Road approximately 150 metres to south of Shide Cross which is junction of St Johns Road, Shide Road and Watergate Road. Existing premises provides a total of seventeen bedrooms with ancillary communal lounge, dining room and kitchen facilities. The property was formerly properties No. 3 and 3A Watergate Road and has functioned as a nursing home since the mid 1980's.

The premises consist of substantial Victorian style building within a large curtilage and standing amongst similar buildings. The building stands within a wedged shaped curtilage that has an overall depth from front boundary to rear boundary of 65 metres, a maximum width of 31 metres to its rear narrowing to width of 21 metres along the frontage boundary. The rear area within which the extension is proposed is a level terrace directly adjacent to the property which abuts a sloping bank with the remaining garden area having a further slope towards the east (rear boundary). The rear garden area itself contains a number of feature trees mainly conifer towards the rear area of the garden. Boundary between No. 3 application property and adjoining property to south, No. 5, consists of a wall with trellis.

Most recent planning history relates to a proposal to convert a kitchen into a bedroom to allow 21 residents to occupy the premises which was granted in June 1995 subject to condition that the permission shall allow for maximum total number of 21 bed spaces for elderly persons or those requiring care. In October 1994, consent was granted for the use of 3A Watergate Road as a nursing home with that consent being subject of condition allowing for a maximum total number of six bed spaces for persons requiring nursing care within that property. From the current information provided, the combined premises provide a total of 17 bedrooms.

Detailed consent is sought for an extension to the rear of the property consisting of a two and a single storey element. Extension to be constructed off the lower garden area and to be attached to the existing building via a single storey element of that building adjoining the northern boundary. Proposed extension will provide four additional bedrooms with en-suite WC's, staff room office and a day room at the lower ground floor level with further six bedrooms with en-suite facilities at the upper ground floor level linked by staircase and lift. The day room to be in the form of a single storey constructed off the lower garden area and located approximately 1.5 metres off the southern boundary. It will be a rectangular structure being 11 metres in width by 19 metres in depth and having west, east and south facing windows. The remaining element of the extension is two storeys in height with the nearest element of the two storey extension being 5.2 metres off the southern boundary. Both the single storey and the two storey element to be constructed in facing brick under slated hipped roofs.

The two storey element of the extension has an overall width of 18 metres by a maximum depth of 9 metres reducing to 8 metres. It will be a minimum 2 metres distance of the northern boundary to maximum of 3 metres. Accommodation immediately adjacent the northern boundary consists of a corridor which gives access to landing, staircase and lift and within that corridor are two windows at ground floor and at first floor level.

In terms of effect on landscape features, proposal indicates the loss of at least two trees with some loss of smaller trees. In the main however, the screening trees to the rear of the site are shown to be retained.

The proposal includes for the utilisation of the existing terrace adjacent southern boundary which can be accessed from the main building and also via steps from the lower garden area. Proposal also indicates space for nine cars within the frontage area accessed off Watergate Road.

Planning policies in respect of this type of proposal are covered under Policy U9 - Residential Care and Nursing Home Accommodation which indicates that new extensions to such accommodation shall not be approved unless they comply with a number of criteria which are listed as follows.

They are of a size which can be assimilated into the locality.

Reasonably level access is provided to and within the site.

Safe access for ambulances and cars is available.

There is on site provision for parking and turning of staff and visitor vehicles.

There is easy access to public transport.

The site is within easy walking distance of the amenities of the settlement.

The building is fit for the purpose for the specified number of residents.

The text attached to that policy is quoted as follows.

Accommodation which is developed to meet the needs of elderly persons or those requiring mental care will have more stringent design and site requirements than normal housing accommodation. In particular, there is a need to ensure effective operation of the facilities and that the residents' access to the wider community and its facilities is made as practical and as easy possible. The Council will promote a coordinated approach to its role and the Local Planning Authority and role as Regulatory Authority when considering proposals for residential care homes.

I also make reference to Policy D1 - Standards of Design. This policy has a number of criteria to which I consider this scheme complies. These are as follows:

(a) respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

(b) sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

(c) of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and uses;

(d) provide for sale, convenient access and circulation for the public, including the disabled;

(e) provide adequate daylight, sunlight and open aspects to the development and adjoining uses;

(g) do not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate spacing between properties;

(h) do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings;

(i) do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

The issues to consider in respect of this application are as follows.

Is the site's curtilage of sufficient area to accommodate the size of extension in terms of footprint, mass and scale without being over-dominant or creating overlooking or loss of privacy problems in respect of adjoining properties?

Has the proposed extension been designed in such a way as to cause minimum environmental impact on the immediate neighbouring property to the south with particular reference to height and overlooking?

Does the site contain sufficient parking provision to cater for additional traffic that may be generated by the proposed extension?

Is the design of the extension compatible with the Victorian character of the existing building?

Whilst I acknowledge the concerns of local residents in terms of the overall spread and size of this extension and the impact it may have on the area in general, I am of the view that the extent of the curtilage is sufficient to accommodate an extension of this size. Members will note that the majority of the trees are to be retained within the rear garden and there is a reasonable distance to the rear boundary to minimise impact on properties in Sydney Close. At its minimum, the distance the proposed extension is from that rear boundary is 17 metres which is considered to be more than enough to counter any adverse impact on those properties.

Furthermore, I consider that the extension still allows sufficient amenity land to be retained thus providing space about as a general view. The Architects have ensured best use of the slope in the site which essentially creates an extension which is of sufficient distance from the original dwelling and is of a reasonable height not to overly affect the basic integrity of the original building.

With regard to impact on the immediate neighbours, particularly to the south, the applicant has provided specific views from that property in an attempt to indicate the likely level of effect in terms of the neighbouring occupiers' existing environment. Whilst I understand that the neighbour continues to be extremely concerned regarding the proposal, I am satisfied that the information available indicates that any impact on the neighbour will be minimal in terms of over-dominance and possible overlooking. Concerning the overlooking issue, I note the concerns regarding the south facing windows within the day room, however, I consider these can be overcome by a condition requiring insertion of obscure glazing.

With regard to the single storey element, this has been purposely situated adjacent the southern boundary to reduce any impact on the neighbour with the two storey element being a reasonable distance off that boundary to ensure reduced impact.

With regard to the impact on the garden areas which abut the northern boundary, whilst acknowledging that the two storey element of the extension is in fairly close proximity to these gardens, the depth of these gardens are sufficient to ensure no adverse effect is caused which could sustain a reason for refusal. Members are advised that the applicants have accepted the principle of incorporating obscure glazing within the corridor windows which face the northern boundary and again this could be adequately covered by way of condition.

With regard to the issue of parking, applicants have provided an analysis of traffic movement and copy of this analysis is attached to this report. Members will appreciate that the analysis is based on the average potential use along with the increase that may occur in respect of the extension, however, the figures provided appear to be reasonable. Members will note that the proposal does provide a maximum of nine parking spaces within its frontage area and I have no reason to believe that this would not be sufficient to cater for this proposal. Certainly, I do not consider that insufficient parking could be a sustainable reason to refuse the application. Members will note that the Highway Engineer has not raised this as an issue.

In terms of the final issue, I am of the view that architecturally the applicants have considered this proposal carefully fully respecting the architectural integrity of the existing Victorian building. Applicants have indicated matching materials, use of hipped roofs which also incidentally reduce mass and scale, all of which should blend satisfactorily with the existing building. Members should also note that in terms of views from a public place, this extension will have little or no impact. This apart however, it is important that an extension of this size does fully respect the architecture and scale and mass of the existing building which I consider in both cases has been successfully achieved in this instance.

With regard to other issues, the support of Social Services and the views of the Registration Unit are noted and Members will be aware of the problems of accommodation for the elderly on the Island are particularly acute at the moment and therefore this type of extension increasing the numbers of bedrooms is welcomed in principle.

Whilst acknowledging the concerns which have been expressed locally, I am of the view that this proposal is acceptable for the reasons given above and therefore I recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as detailed in the evaluation section above, it is considered that the site has sufficient curtilage to accommodate the extension, has been designed to have minimal impact on neighbouring properties with any impact being able to be addressed by way of conditions, that it is unlikely to generate additional traffic and that architecturally, it is compatible with the existing building and is therefore in compliance with the various policies within the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply:

(a) No placement or storage of material;

(b) No placement or storage of fuels or 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 ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan in compliance with Policy C12 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

3 Before the development commences, a landscaping planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall provide for boundary planting where appropriate. Such scheme shall specify position, species and size of planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years of the date of planting.

Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual screening in respect of adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (h) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

4 The windows in the north and south facing elevations shall be permanently fixed (non-opening) and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (h) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

5 Prior to occupation of the extension hereby approved, nine parking spaces as indicated on drawing No. 793.L(2)-011 shall be laid out for use with such spaces being retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

18.

TCP/22584/C P/00092/01 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Calbourne Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 01/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566

Siting of 6 holiday caravans Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Ningwood, Newport

Representations

Shalfleet Parish Council is opposed to this application on the following grounds.

1. That the narrow road and approach way is unsuitable.

2. That the site is not on main drainage and any seepage would be into the brook opposite which filters down the Newtown Creek.

3. That the Orchards Caravan Park is within the same locality and provides adequate accommodation of this sort.

4. That this would set a dangerous precedent for piecemeal introduction of caravans in other locations (this is not a working farm).

5. This is in effect a development and as such not in the best interests of the rural location.

The Councillors were also concerned to learn that these caravans have already been on site for some three months and wish to express their unease that the landowner may be taking it for granted that his application will be approved.

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment as the application has no highway implications.

Environmental Health Services (Licensing Section) to be reported.

Isle of Wight Tourism would consider this as diversification and would further encourage that they are graded and inspected. No comment on location.

Environment Agency comment that as there is no mains foul sewer in vicinity applicant will have to consider a non-mains drainage option for disposal of foul water from this site. Likely that ground conditions will be unsuitable for use of a septic tank or sewage treatment plant discharging to a soakaway and believe no suitable watercourse in immediate vicinity that would be suitable to discharge effluent from a sewage treatment plant. Therefore, likely only viable solution would be a sealed cesspool. Recommend condition if planning permission granted to this effect.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service to be reported.

Scottish and Southern Energy PLC attach plans and precautionary guidelines.

One letter of objection received making the following points:

Believe holiday caravans have been let here in recent years without planning permission.

This is not genuine farm diversification.

Will create additional traffic in Warlands Lane and in the Ningwood area.

Will create proliferation of holiday caravans in Parish with other sites at the Orchards and Glebe Farm.

Evaluation

Full planning permission sought for the siting of six caravans at the southern edge of a grass field lying on the south side of Warlands Lane some 750 metres southwest of Shalfleet. Field is part of a landholding of some 13.8 hectares which forms Lower Dodpits Farm with the main farm buildings lying to the west of the application site.

The field, which is the subject of the application, is bounded on its southern side by a 2 metre hedge beyond which is a series of ponds. To the west is an overgrown area of low lying ground. The eastern boundary is presently formed by a post and rail fence. Submitted plans show proposal for the caravans to be accessed off Warlands Lane at the point where the road turns abruptly northward. The intention is to run a new access following fence line before cutting through into the field where the six caravans are to be positioned. Submitted plan shows an intention to put a tree screen on the northern side of the caravans. Letter submitted with application indicating proposal is for six holiday caravans and scheme submitted following receipt of MAFF guidance promoting diversification.

Further letter from applicant submitted in response to the concerns raised by the Parish Council. This letter is attached as an addendum to the report.

In response to questions on relationship of proposal to form diversification applicant has submitted the following points:

Note comments of Environment Agency, precise location of tanks will need to be determined when development under way.

Purchased farm in 1995, had an agreed business plan with the bank which would lead to a break even point at the end of 1998.

Planned to buy 20 head of young stock in 1995 but BSE crisis hit.

In 1996, suffered financial loss due to difficulties with administration of beef assurance scheme.

In 1997 obvious not going to meet financial targets and accordingly Mr Faulkner took up employment to pay back the bank, bills and subsidise farm.

Since 1997 have periodically raised sheep but not successfully from financial point of view.

Cut approximately 2,000 bales of hay each year, this reduced recently due to Seaclean Wight Pipeline work. Depending on conditions, cut grass silage.

Bought farm to make it a going concern and current proposal considered as possible solution to keeping old farm together as a single unit.

We estimate in four to five years can create a mixed economy farm with small scale tourism, specialist animals and equestrian interest.

Acknowledge enterprise remains a financial gamble but if plans work we anticipate returning to work solely on farm.

Can confirm we are members of NFU.

We continue to develop plans to improve farm including new and better buildings.

The determining factors with regard to this application are firstly, whether proposal conforms with the Council's general planning policies with regard to this type of development in this location, secondly, whether a safe vehicle access can be achieved and thirdly, whether the foul water drainage facilities are considered adequate.

With regard to the first point, the relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season), T9 (Small scale Rural Tourist Development), Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and Policy C15 (Appropriate Agricultural Diversification). Policy T9 refers to the development being "ancillary to an existing farming operation" whilst policy C15 acknowledges the benefits that diversification can bring. Question has arisen in this particular case whether the proposal falls within this criterion and applicant has submitted a letter in support. Whilst I acknowledge that a number of farm holdings can be found of a similar size to this, I am conscious that the applicant is not employed in agriculture and on the basis of the information presently submitted, it is my view that the land holding is not farmed in the generally accepted sense of the word. Accordingly, I do not consider proposal meets the general criteria behind the diversification policy. To support this application would undoubtedly lead to other proposals being submitted for the siting of caravans on parcels of land elsewhere within the countryside.

With regard to the second point on access, Highway Engineer raises no objection although the Parish Council and the single letter of objection raise concerns regarding the local road system.

Concerning the third point on drainage, Environment Agency have reviewed their original comments and acknowledge that a cesspool would be required. If necessary this could be conditional.

In conclusion, whilst I appreciate that farm diversification has an increasing role to play in maintaining the viability of farm holdings, given the information submitted, I do not consider that Lower Dodpits Farm meets the criteria which would enable it to benefit from the policies relating to farm diversification. On that basis, proposal is considered to be contrary to planning policy.

In the event that the application is refused, applicant should then be asked to clarify situation relating to presence of caravans on his land.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in the evaluation section of this report, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the UDP policies and as such, I find myself unable to support it.

Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Although the Council is prepared to consider and support proposals which would support appropriate farm diversification, it is not considered that the evidence put forward by the applicant meets the criteria expected and accordingly the scheme is considered to be contrary to Policy C15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

19.

TCP/23601/B P/01831/00 Parish/Name: St. Helens Ward: St Helens

Registration Date: 12/12/2000 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823571

Proposed bungalow, land rear of 40-40A, Station Road, St. Helens, Ryde

This application was considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 13 March 2001 at which time Members deferred the application for a site inspection which took place on 23 March 2001. Following the visit to the site, Members resolved to defer the application a further time in order for officers to carry out consultations with the Environment Agency regarding springs in the area and the control they may exercise in this respect. In addition, officers were requested to obtain further information regarding the drainage improvement scheme likely to be undertaken by the Council and to establish what effect this will have, if any, on the site.

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Environment Agency comment as follows:

"The site lies upon the Bouldner Formation, basically a collection of clays, sand, gravels and limestone which is classified as a minor aquifer. If ground water levels are high in this area, there could be possibilities of spring flows erupting in discreet areas, however it is unlikely and the flooding problems mentioned are more likely to be due to surface water from existing hard/impermeable surfaces running to lower elevations.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to give anything more than basic guidance unless there is some form of site investigation which could involve construction of trial pits/bore holes and tracing of any existing drainage runs which may have become blocked.

In any case, the Agency would recommend that there are alternatives to conventional storage for the control of surface water run-off where ground conditions are suitable. Sustainable urban drainage systems for flood peak attenuation, water quality improvement and environmental enhancement may be used to balance flows using systems such as permeable pavements, grassed swales, infiltration trenches, pond and wetlands."

I am advised by the Housing Officer in the Directorate of Social Services and Housing that they have a responsibility for private sector drainage enforcement matters and in that capacity, an inspection of no. 40 took place on 9 March 2001. It was reported to the officer that since the development of two bungalows and detached garages on the site behind the property, the gardens have suffered from ground/surface water problems. On inspection, the drainage was seen to be running freely from the new development which could indicate that the drainage excavations themselves may now be inadvertently acting as a means of channelling the ground/surface water into both the rear garden of no. 40 and that of no. 42 as witnessed. I am advised by the Housing Officer that this issue is beyond their legislative powers as the cause is not via a defective pipe/drain from a building and suggests that, under any powers that the Planning Section may have, consideration could be given to resolving this problem when considering the proposal for the additional bungalow.

Southern Water comment as follows:

"The sewer is indicated on the map as a combined sewer, ie to convey both foul and surface water. Ground water is not allowed to be directed to the public sewer. Southern Water would prefer that the amount of surface water in the sewers be reduced to the minimum. Excessive amounts of surface water entering foul and combined sewers can cause flooding to downstream properties. Additionally, as all the water in the sewer has to be treated, we would not want large volumes of clean water overloading the works. If soakaways would work in the garden of the new house, that would be a more suitable and sustainable option. If not, we would permit the roof water to be connected to the sewer, possibly with water butts to collect some of the water."

St Helens Parish Council object to proposed development for following reasons:

Proposed development represents overdevelopment of this land taking into account previous approvals of two adjacent new bungalows and the division of 40 Station Road into two separate units of accommodation.

The recently approved development for the two bungalows adjacent has caused extensive land drainage problems which, the Council are aware, is causing an adverse effect to properties on the southern side of the proposed development. The proposed development will exacerbate an already unacceptable situation.

Parish Council suggest that a site inspection should be carried out before application is determined.

Six letters received from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Hazard to road users and inconvenience to residents caused by vehicles parked in road.

Soakaway pipes unable to cope with excess flooding.

Inadequacies of drainage system causing flooding to adjacent properties.

Overdevelopment to detriment of amenities of area.

Inadequate access/poor visibility.

Overlooking of adjacent properties.

Evaluation

Application relates to vacant plot of land located on western side of Station Road some 300 metres south of its junction with Upper Green Road. Site is located to rear of properties fronting Station Road accessed over private driveway which serves two bungalows constructed pursuant to planning permission granted in July 2000.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal represents overdevelopment of site to detriment of character of area in general and amenities of neighbouring residential properties in particular and whether access is adequate to serve additional dwelling within site.

In accordance with Policy G1 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes. In addition, Policy G4 of the plan deals with general locational criteria and proposals will be expected to conform with the criteria set out in the policy. Policies D1 and D2 of the plan deal with standards of design and proposals will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policies. Policy H4 of the plan requires that new residential development including infill, conversion and redevelopment of sites not allocated within the plan are located within development envelopes of defined settlements.

Application site is located within development envelope for St Helens as defined on Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan and proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Southern boundary of site is defined by dense Leylandii hedge with western boundary defined by post and wire fencing and natural growth. Submitted plans indicate that 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing is to be erected along part of western boundary and along eastern boundary of site with properties which front Station Road. Having regard to nature of development involving provision of single storey accommodation, position of windows and existing and proposed boundary treatment, I do not consider that development will result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Furthermore, I do not consider that building will have significant impact on neighbouring properties. Plot size is comparable with those adjacent site which have been developed in a similar fashion and, in general, I do not consider that proposal represents overdevelopment of site.

Access road is approximately 3 metres wide and in addition to proposed dwelling, serves two newly constructed bungalows on adjacent plots and provides access to parking facilities and garage for adjacent dwelling which fronts Station Road. I do not consider that addition of one dwelling in this area will result in a significant increase in traffic using driveway and I am satisfied that it is adequate to serve the proposed development. In this respect, Members' attention is drawn to advice contained in Design Bulletin 32 - Residential Roads and Footpaths which indicates that a shared driveway, such as that which provides access to the application site, would be suitable to serve up to five dwellings.

Application forms indicate that surface water and foul sewage is to be disposed of to existing sewer. In view of the representations received in respect of the application, the concerns regarding flooding and adequacy of the existing sewer to deal with surface water and foul sewage have been raised with the applicants and Southern Water.

Applicant has provided copy of letter from Southern Water containing the advice detailed under Representations. Furthermore, prior to the date of the Committee site visits, applicant confirmed that:

(a) The existing development of two bungalows did not use soakaways; all surface water was piped into the existing adopted combined sewer. The proposed new bungalow will also discharge its surface water into the existing sewers.

(b) The proposed new bungalow is only a two bed property, and approximately 20% smaller in floor area on a slightly larger plot than the other two bungalows. The existing garage adjacent to the plot is available should approval be given.

Following consultations with the Area Building Control Surveyor, it is understood that the property is located in an area of Bembridge Marl Clay where use of soakaways for disposal of surface water would be inappropriate. Furthermore, it is considered that one additional dwelling would not result in a significant increase in the volume of water entering the combined sewer.

Following consultations with the Council's Highway Maintenance Department, it is understood that they are intending to carry out a drainage scheme at Station Road which starts downstream of the proposed development. I am advised that, at present, surface water from the top section of Station Road is carried in a drain across land belonging to the owners of the Old Station House, at the bottom of the hill. Over the last few years the drain has surcharged onto the land from an inspection pit in the field which is alleged to have caused damage to a tennis court, the field and gardens. It is understood that this problem would appear to be due to a blockage of the system within the gardens of the Old Station House.

In order to avoid disrupting landscaped gardens, and an ornamental pond etc to the Old Station House, it has been decided to install a new drainage system within the highway and to outfall the surface water into the Eastern Yar. I am advised that this system is likely to comprise a 450 mm diameter HDPE pipe with connection from road gullies. The work in question is subject to Environment Agency approval for the outfall works. It is anticipated that the system will improve the efficiency of surface water drainage of the lower half of Station Road and is likely to take place during the latter part of the summer 2001. Having discussed the matter further with a representative within the Highway Maintenance Department, it is not envisaged that the blockage in the storm water drain would have adversely affected properties further up Station Road.

As a result of further discussions with the applicant, it is understood that residents of Station Road in the vicinity of the application site have previously experienced problems involving sewage surcharging onto their land from nearby inspection pits. Following investigations by Southern Water, it was ascertained that the likely cause of this problem was the invasion of tree roots into the sewer pipe causing a blockage. Therefore, Southern Water served notice on applicants to enter his land to replace the sewer pipe. It is understood that when this was laid, it was surrounded by gravel which, together with laying of drainage pipes in conjunction with previous development of two bungalows on this land, effectively created soakaway through site, possibly diverting groundwater along line of public sewer. This suggestion would appear to agree with view expressed by the Housing Officer.

Having regard to fact that it is intended to dispose of surface water drainage from proposed bungalow into combined system, I do not consider that proposal will contribute significantly to ground water in the locality. Therefore, in view of investigations carried out and apparent cause of problems being experienced by householders adjacent site, I do not consider that this issue would provide sustainable reason to withhold consent for the additional bungalow.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the proposal is acceptable in principle and will not detract from character of area in general or amenities of neighbouring properties in particular. I consider that proposal is acceptable in terms of access and design and I am satisfied that proposal does not represent overdevelopment or conflict with policies of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1 Time limit - full - A10

2 Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02

3 The surface water from the development hereby approved shall be disposed of to the main sewer and shall not be disposed of to soakaways. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the dwelling.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

4 The existing Leylandii hedge along the southern boundary of the site shall be retained and reinforced where necessary to a minimum height of 2.5 metres and to a standard consistent with good arboricultural practice.

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

5 The close boarded fencing along the eastern and western boundaries of the site, as detailed on the approved plans, shall be erected prior to the building hereby approved being occupied and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

20.

TCP/23877/A P/00308/01 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Gatcombe Godshill and Rookley

Registration Date: 28/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr L Byrne Tel: (01983) 823577

Retention of dome structure, Willow Tree Tea Gardens, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight

Representations

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

Environment Agency indicate they have no objection in principle.

The Parish Council comment that the existing local amenity of a tea garden is being altered in an unseemly way and detracts rather than adds to the charm of the village.

Evaluation

This application relates to the Willow Tree Tea Gardens which, as Members will be aware, is an established tea gardens situated on the southern side of Godshill High Street and is prominently located in the centre of the village. The premises comprises a modern single storey tea rooms with a large garden are a fronting the highway which is used as external seating for the tea gardens. There is a large willow tree in front of the existing building and other landscaping and ornamental features within the garden area.

The site is situated within the Godshill Conservation Area and also within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The submitted details indicate that the structure comprises a white painted mild steel dome on fluted columns of reconstituted stone. The overall size of the dome structure is 4 metres in height with a diameter of 3.6 metres. It is situated within the front garden area.

As the structure is situated in a commercial tea gardens within a Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the determining factor is considered to be the visual effect of the structure on the overall character and amenities of the area.

Policy D9 of the Depositary Draft Unitary Development Plan refers to works of art, artefacts or architectural features and indicates that applications for major developments will be expected and encouraged to consider inclusion of such works within any scheme. These works would be approved if they provide a positive contribution to the appearance of the scheme and the surrounding area. Policy D4 refers to applications involving external works and indicates that these will be approved where any new structures relate well to the character of the area and minimise damage to landscape, wildlife, trees and other aspects worthy of preservation. Policy B6 refers to protection of the character of Conservation Areas.

Members are advised that this application is the result of enforcement action due to the construction prior to the submission of this application. Therefore its visual impact can be assessed.

Should members be minded to approve the application, I am recommending that a condition is imposed restricting the covering internally or externally of the dome.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the structure is relatively prominent and of somewhat unusual appearance, I do not consider it to be unattractive or detrimental to the visual character or amenities of the Conservation Area.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having giving due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the dome structure is visually acceptable within the designated Conservation Area and I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable in accordance with Policies D4 and B6 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

21. TCP/23950 P/00117/01 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 13/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

Use of agricultural buildings and land for storage of horticultural, agricultural and commercial machinery and vehicles; minor servicing and repairs to own equipment, including provision of visibility splay on Newport Road frontage (revised description) (readvertised application) Kingswell Dairy, 391 Newport Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight

Representations

Three letters of objection have been received, one from resident of Newport Road and two from resident of Oxford Street. Points of objection are summarised as follows.

Consent could lead to the use of the site for industrial purposes with writer suggesting there are existing industrial sites where such a proposed use could take place.

Access is directly onto Newport Road and its additional use as a result of this proposal would create increased dangers and hazards to road users with particular reference to reduced visibility during dusk and dawn and during fog situations.

Reference is made to other similar change of uses being sought within Northwood which have been rejected.

Concern that noise levels, fumes and pollution would be increased to the detriment of the adjoining residential property.

Occupier of an adjoining property objects on the grounds of unacceptable levels of concentrated noise and pollution which she considers would be detrimental to sleep patterns in connection with day and night shifts.

Proposal will interfere with wildlife habitat and is contrary to the village characteristics associated with Northwood.

Site contains badger setts and fox holes.

Environment Agency recommends conditions should application be approved.

The owner of the site confirms that consent has been given by them for temporary parking of vehicles on the land but emphasis that they have no intention of allowing permanent use of the site for the purposes proposed.

Council's Environmental Health Officer expresses concern that this proposal may have an effect on nearby residential properties but is suggesting that these could be controlled by condition relating to times of use of the access restricted to 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 16.00 hours Saturday and not at all on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Also, it is recommended that maintenance repair and testing of plant shall relate to the applicant's own equipment only and shall be confined to within the buildings with doors and windows shut to the hours as suggested above. It is also suggested that no burning in the open air shall take place on site at any time and details of height, position and purpose of any flue, chimney or vent to be submitted to the Planning Authority before an individual use commences.

Highway Engineer recommends application should provide for a new visibility splay to the south which will involve the replacement of the existing boundary hedge with a fence/hedge along the visibility splay line.

Evaluation

Application relates to just under half of a small farmyard/storage area situated on the western side of Newport Road served by a narrow (4 metres wide) access off that road adjacent to semi-detached property 393 Newport Road. The application site area forms part of a larger area within which are a number of farm buildings, many of which are derelict. Access serves not only the yard area but properties 393 and 391 Newport Road. Immediately to the south of the yard area and access is an open field which has a frontage onto Newport Road of approximately 90 metres with the frontage boundary onto that road being in the form of a low level hawthorn hedge.

Consent is sought for the use of the area and access off Newport Road in conjunction with storage of horticultural/agricultural/commercial machinery and vehicles along with the use of an existing store/garage for use as storage/minor servicing and repairs to applicant's equipment. The use relates to a ground maintenance business which employs a total of four persons. Storage repairs and maintenance use in terms of vehicles, is itemised as follows.

Four vehicles, one tractor, two compact tractors, two trailers, garden machinery and wood chipper.

It is emphasised that none of the machines will be used on the site because all of their work is carried out in various locations around the Island.

Applicants emphasise the following in terms of usage of the drive.

"Although we will have the above amount of vehicles at this site, not all of them are used every day as we only have four manual employees normally working with two men per vehicle. The maximum amount of vehicles leaving the yard in one day will be four. The driveway was used much more frequently when the farm was lucrative but since the farm has declined, approximately two vehicles per day use the drive in and out. We would like to leave the yard in the morning between 8.00 and 8.30 a.m. and return between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. Monday to Saturday. Speed limit on the drive will be kept to 5 mph."

The applicants indicate that the shed located in the southeast side of the yard will be repaired in order to store some equipment. There is also a portable building to the west side of the yard in which it is hoped to store some small equipment.

Following comments of the Highway Engineer, applicants have revised the application to include the provision of a visibility splay (4.8 metres by 90 metres) which involves the removal of virtually the whole of the hedge along the Newport Road frontage boundary to be replaced by a fence and new hedge along the along back edge of the proposed visibility line. Applicants have indicated their acceptance of this requirement stating that they are willing to replant on the new recommended line with a hawthorn hedge and add a cattle-proof barbed wire fence.

In terms of security, applicants will take every reasonable measure to secure the yard from theft and vandalism by the introduction of secure gates, erection of security fencing where needed and provision of security lights in concealed areas along the driveway. All equipment will be kept in secure lockable storage.

The site is outside the development envelope boundary and therefore falls within the countryside policies. Reference is made to Policy E8 in emerging UDP which relates to employment in the countryside. It refers to proposals being of benefit to the rural economy, being in an appropriate location and meeting one of three caveats:

(a) the development allows for the expansion of firms which could not be expected to relocate;

(b) the application is for the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural building;

(c) where the development is associated with an existing farm complex or other employment operation and is compatible with, and complementary to, that use.

The material consideration in respect of this proposal is whether or not the relatively limited use of this storage area in terms of vehicular movement, maintenance and repair work can be reasonably controlled without causing undue disturbance in terms of noise, vibration, dust, fumes or smell to those limited number of residential properties in close proximity.

The second issue is that related to the provision of the visibility splay as required by the Highway Engineer and the resultant environmental impact in terms of loss of a prominent hedgerow which, although to be replaced, that replacement procedure will take some time to mature.

Before assessing these issues, Members are advised that the applicants are presently operating their business entirely from residential premises in Fairlee Road, Newport with that use being subject of an enforcement appeal following refusal of a retrospective application in September 1999. That enforcement appeal was dismissed on 11 February 2000 with period of compliance being 12 months. The Inspector's reasons for dismissing the appeal are quoted as follows.

"..... apart from the fact that to grant permission would be contrary to the Development Plan not justified by other material considerations monitoring the necessary conditions would be difficult and time consuming and if the business prospered and grew, I believe the Council would have great difficulty in preventing the use of the site from increasing in intensity."

Members will note that applicants have already exceeded their 12 months compliance time, a fact my department has noted. However given the submission of this application, action has been deferred until this application is determined. It is also important that Members appreciate that the applicants have, during the ensuing period, actively pursued alternative premises from which to manage the vehicles and unfortunately have been unable to find or obtain access to any of those which they identified as being possibilities. It is appreciated that the continuation of the use beyond the 12 month period is regrettable and if Members are mindful to refuse this application then legal proceedings will have to be considered to ensure compliance with the aforementioned appeal decision.

Returning to the material considerations in respect of the current proposal, there are differing circumstances to this site when compared with the current activity in Fairlee Road.

Most important factor in this case in the use of the site being for agricultural purposes. Whilst accepting that the yard has not been used for some time in conjunction with agriculture, it could be used as such without consent. Such a use would obviously involve vehicle movements using the access and other activities within the yard at any time of the day any of which could cause disturbance to local residents. Therefore, in terms of the proposed use including vehicle movements, main consideration is whether applicants' detailed requirements represent an unacceptable intensification which could not be controlled by conditions.

Vehicle movement times offered by the applicants are not particularly early or late and certainly it would not be considered unusual if in connection with agriculture. Therefore, whilst noting the concerns of the immediate local resident, I consider that provided the applicants keep within the times and level of uses indicated that refusal would be unreasonable in this case.

I would however, suggest that this may be a case for a temporary consent being granted to test the situation with three years being the time period which would allow sufficient time for such a judgement of effect to take place. Also, I would suggest appropriate conditions restricting use accordingly.

The second issue and probably the most significant in visual terms, is the requirement for the visibility splay. Whilst in the immediate period the removal of the hedge and its replacement will have an unfortunate visual impact, the replacement hedge would soon mature and return the frontage to its original character. Again, I consider this can be dealt with by way of condition requiring the immediate planting of this hedgerow prior to the proposed use taking place.

Concerning the objector's reference to Badger occupation of the site, an inspection has been carried out by the Council's Ecology Officer who confirms that there is "evidence of recent extensive digging beneath and behind the existing shed in the southeast corner....." The applicant has been advised of this situation.

Reasons for Recommendations

Having paid due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the evaluation section, I consider the use proposed in this location is acceptable subject to appropriate constraints which can be covered by way of condition. I also consider that in view of concerns which have been expressed, I consider a reasonable approach in this case would be to issue a temporary consent for three years. In terms of compliance with policy, I consider this proposal satisfactory complies with policy E8 inasmuch that it is making reuse of suitable agriculture or other appropriate building and is compatible with a complementary to an agricultural use.

1. Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1 The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 June 2004 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 Vehicular movements in connection with the ground maintenance business use shall only occur between 08.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

Reason: To minimise the disturbance to neighbouring property occupiers in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

3 No machinery shall be operated and no other processes including any repair, maintenance or testing of plant or machinery shall be carried out in respect of the use of the land for ground maintenance business outside the hours of 08.00 to 17.00 Mondays to Fridays or 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. Any maintenance, repair and testing of plant or machinery shall be restricted to equipment relating to the ground maintenance business only and shall be confined to within buildings with doors and windows shut to the hours as above.

Reason: To minimise the disturbance to neighbouring property occupiers in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

4 No other commercial vehicles and plant other than those specified by this condition shall be kept on the site unless the express approval has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority to vary this list.

Four vehicles, one tractor, two compact tractors, two trailers, garden machinery and wood one chipper.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

5 The visibility splay as indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be constructed prior to commencement of the use with such visibility splay being maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

6 Prior to the use hereby approved being implemented, a replacement hedgerow shall be planted along the back edge of the visibility splay referred to in condition 5 above, with such hedge planting being in accordance with a scheme to be agreed. Any hedge planting shall be in the form of native species and shall be protected over an agreed period. Any hedge planting removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting shall be replaced with hedge planting of similar size and species for those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D3 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation

Letter be sent to applicant confirming evidence as to presence of badgers on the site and suggesting that they seek the advice from an experienced badger consultant to assess the situation.

22. TCPL/24012 P/00386/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West

Registration Date: 08/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Retention of polytunnel in connection with Ryde House Nursery Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3NF

See joint reports on application nos. TCPL/24012A/P397/01, LBC/24012B/P398/01 and LBC/24012C/P621/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1 This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2002, on or before which date the buildings shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The buildings are of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 The greenhouse/polytunnels shall only be used as a horticultural unit for therapeutic use in connection with the use of Ryde House for purposes within Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose and when the use of the property as a home for persons with learning difficulties cases, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all associated structures removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

3 This permission shall only authorise the use of the premises for the sale of plants and produce actually grown on the premises and not for the sale of produce grown elsewhere or for the sale of growing aids, garden implements, garden furniture, ornaments or any other purpose included within Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

4 The premises shall only be used for the sale of produce to members of the public between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily and at no other time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

5 During the first planting season following the grant of this planning permission, the area immediately around the permitted development shall be landscaped and trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

23. TCPL/24012/A P/00397/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West

Registration Date: 08/03/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

Removal of condition no.1 on TCPL/17754W to allow the retention of greenhouses, poly tunnels & a shed in connection with Ryde House Nursery Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3NF

See joint reports on application nos. TCPL/24012/P386/00, LBC/24012B/P398/01 and LBC/24012C/P621/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1 This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2002, on or before which date the buildings shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The buildings are of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 The greenhouse/polytunnels shall only be used as a horticultural unit for therapeutic use in connection with the use of Ryde House for purposes within Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose and when the use of the property as a home for persons with learning difficulties cases, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all associated structures removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

3 This permission shall only authorise the use of the premises for the sale of plants and produce actually grown on the premises and not for the sale of produce grown elsewhere or for the sale of growing aids, garden implements, garden furniture, ornaments or any other purpose included within Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

4 The premises shall only be used for the sale of produce to members of the public between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily and at no other time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

5 During the first planting season following the grant of this planning permission, the area immediately around the permitted development shall be landscaped and trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

24. LBC/24012/B P/00398/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West
Registration Date: 08/03/2001 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

LBC for removal of condition no. 1 on LBC/17754X to allow the retention of greenhouses, poly tunnels & a shed in connection with Ryde House Nursery Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3NF

See joint reports on application nos. TCPL/24012/P386/00, TCPL/24012A/P397/01 and LBC/24012C/P621/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1 This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2002, on or before which date the buildings shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The buildings are of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 The greenhouse/polytunnels shall only be used as a horticultural unit for therapeutic use in connection with the use of Ryde House for purposes within Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose and when the use of the property as a home for persons with learning difficulties cases, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all associated structures removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

3 This permission shall only authorise the use of the premises for the sale of plants and produce actually grown on the premises and not for the sale of produce grown elsewhere or for the sale of growing aids, garden implements, garden furniture, ornaments or any other purpose included within Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

4 The premises shall only be used for the sale of produce to members of the public between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily and at no other time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

5 During the first planting season following the grant of this planning permission, the area immediately around the permitted development shall be landscaped and trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

25. LBC/24012/C P/00621/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West

Registration Date: 18/04/2001 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

LBC for retention of polytunnel in connection with Ryde House Nursery Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3NF

Also see joint reports on application nos. TCPL/24012/P386/00, TCPL/24012A/P397/01 and LBC/24012B/P398/01.

Representations

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Evaluation

Ryde House, which is Grade II listed building, is situated within substantial grounds located to west of Ryde and immediately adjacent Ryde Golf Course served by unmade track leading from Binstead Road.

In terms of relevant history, consent granted in 1985 for temporary period expiring in 1990 for erection of greenhouse and two polythene tunnels for therapeutic use in connection with mentally handicapped residents and for sale of produce on twice weekly basis. Consent subsequently renewed in 1990 and 1996 with most recent approval expiring 31 March 2001. Latter application also sought consent for variation of condition to allow nursery to open seven days a week.

Application TCPL/24012/P386/01 seeks retrospective consent to retain polytunnel (no. 5) on application plan. This polytunnel is located along side walled garden area and measures some 9.5 metres long by 4.5 metres wide and comprises arched profile having maximum height of some 4 metres above ground level.

Application TCPL/24012A/P397/01 seeks to remove temporary time limit which expired 31 March 2001 which relates to temporary approval issued in respect of four polytunnels and shed outside main walled garden area, together with three greenhouses and polytunnel within walled garden area itself. Within walled garden area structures measure as follows:

Timber framed greenhouse: 11.7 x 15.4 metres.

Timber framed greenhouse: 6.2 x 12.3 metres.

Polytunnel: 5 x 16.5 metres.

Greenhouse: 18.3 x 6.2 metres.

Outside walled garden structures are:

Two polytunnels: 10 x 20 metres.

Two polytunnels: 16.5 x 5 metres.

Workshed: 10.6 x 3 metres.

Remaining applications referring to associated submissions seek formal listed building consent.

As with previous applications, main planning consideration in respect of retention of existing structures and retention of further polytunnel in connection with nursery are their effect on the character and setting of Ryde House which, as previously mentioned, is listed building.

Wall surrounding garden on south east side of property varies in height between 2.5 and 3 metres and structures within walled garden area are therefore not readily visible when approaching Ryde House along drive from Binstead House. However, structures outside walled garden, being larger and not having benefit of being located within permanent structure, are more visually prominent, although some screening has been carried out in form of Leylandii trees which are now becoming well established. Some additional screening is provided by section of stone wall which projects from wall enclosing garden and which abuts double gated entrance.

As previously reported to Members, main aspect of house is not visually prominent when approaching along drive until closer to property and within turning/parking area. Nevertheless, structures outside walled garden must be considered in terms of their impact and effect on setting of Ryde House as listed building. In this respect, as previously reported, it is considered that their presence and planting of Leylandii screen are alien to character of building and its surroundings.

In support of application, agent states that nursery is used in connection with Ryde House in caring for people with learning difficulties. Nursery forms important part of activities carried out at Ryde House and provides employment for residents and visitors to Ryde House, together with three full-time and two-part time members of staff from local area. Employment opportunities providing by the nursery build up greater sense of self-esteem and purpose, as well as enjoyment and are of enormous value to residents and visitors of Ryde House. The existence of the polytunnels permitted by the temporary planning consent and listed building consent allows this vital function to continue and without them the activities would decline if not cease at the site to the detriment of the residents and visitors to Ryde House. Furthermore, the horticultural structures and use are both appropriate to rural area in which they are located and structures do not detract from character and setting of listed building, as they are largely screened from views into site by wall of garden and existing vegetation. They consider that there does not seem to be any reason why condition cannot be removed altogether, particularly bearing in mind uncertainty that limited time period gives rise to for this valuable/worthwhile use.

When considering most recent application seeking renewal of consent in February 1996, Members were advised of operation of Ryde House and it was understood that following discussions with owner, business had expanded over recent years primarily by word of mouth and nursery now has a number of commercial visitors to whom goods are delivered in addition to custom generated by visiting members of public. My report made clear that in addition to considering impact of development on setting of listed building, it was also necessary to take account value of undertaking to residents of Ryde House and benefits gained by both them and visitors. Operation continues to offer valuable and somewhat unique facility with considerable benefits and skills to persons with learning difficulties who otherwise may find it difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. Point was made in my previous report that whilst the establishment of a commercial nursery business in this location or retention of temporary structures outside walled gardens could not be supported on permanent basis, it was considered that operation of business in conjunction with running of Ryde House is home for persons with learning difficulties was acceptable and therefore application was recommended for approval. However, further recommendation which was supported by Members required the applicant/agent to put on notice that the temporary consent in so far as it related to structures outside the walled garden would not be renewed following the expiry of the current temporary consent and that the structures must be dismantled and removed and the area restored to its former condition at the end of the five year period, ie March 2001.

A letter advising of Members' concerns was sent with the formal planning permission document and attracted a response from the owner. A further letter was sent to owner outlining planning considerations in respect of renewal of planning consent. Point was made that objective of conditional planning consent and accompanying letter was to see polytunnels outside walled garden area are removed from site either altogether or to an alternative location where there is unlikely to be any effect on the setting of the listed building. Any application to renew the temporary consent in so far as it relates to development within the walled garden area would be judged on its merits at the appropriate time. Letter also made the point that any further intensification of nursery use would be unlikely to receive favourable consideration.

In planning terms, the position was clearly set out at time of previous renewal consent issued in February 1996 and current application not only seeks to remove temporary time limit, but also seeks to retain further polytunnel on site.

I am of the opinion that planning considerations remain almost identical to those considered when processing previous application seeking renewal in 1996. Clearly operator has been put on notice that Local Planning Authority would be reluctant to renew consent. However, given operation involved and its unique characteristics, I consider it reasonable in this instance to recommend further temporary consent for one year in order that alternative arrangements can be made to remove and perhaps relocate the temporary structures outside the walled garden area. It is also recommended that further letter be sent to applicant/agent advising that any further application seeking temporary consent for structures outside the walled garden areas will not be renewed and that the structures must be dismantled and removed and this area restored to its former condition at the end of this further temporary consent period.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, it is considered that whilst the retention of the temporary structures would conflict with Policies D1 and B2 of the Unitary Development Plan, given the special circumstances surrounding the operation of this nursery, it is considered appropriate to allow the structures to remain for a further maximum period of one year in order that alternative arrangements can be made in the interim period.

Recommendation - Approval (all four applications) subject to no further comments being received on or before 25 May 2001 which would warrant further consideration of the applications).

Conditions/Reasons:

1 This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2002, on or before which date the buildings shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its formal condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period.

Reason: The buildings are of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

2 The greenhouse/polytunnels shall only be used as a horticultural unit for therapeutic use in connection with the use of Ryde House for purposes within Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose and when the use of the property as a home for persons with learning difficulties cases, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all associated structures removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

3 This permission shall only authorise the use of the premises for the sale of plants and produce actually grown on the premises and not for the sale of produce grown elsewhere or for the sale of growing aids, garden implements, garden furniture, ornaments or any other purpose included within Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

4 The premises shall only be used for the sale of produce to members of the public between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily and at no other time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.

5 During the first planting season following the grant of this planning permission, the area immediately around the permitted development shall be landscaped and trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

PART IV - ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/16883B/P1206/00 Construction of decking area to the rear of 20 Leeson Road, Ventnor

SUMMARY

To consider the circumstances relating to the installation of a raised wooden decking area on the rear of a replacement dwelling and based on the information collected, consider:

(a) whether the installation of the decking area was undertaken by the occupant exercising his householder permitted development rights; or

(b) whether the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required for the retention of the wooden decking area because the works were undertaken at a time when the permitted development rights could not be exercised because of the condition/use of the new dwelling.

BACKGROUND

In May 1999 planning permission was granted for the construction of a replacement dwelling at 20 Leeson Road, Ventnor. The replacement property was to take the form of a single storey unit. A range of conditions was imposed when planning permission was granted but none of the conditions related to the removal of any of the future householders permitted development rights. Members will be aware that the removal of such permitted development rights has only taken place exceptionally in the past for example where a property occupied a relatively small area or where the design of the property has been the subject of negotiation and a reduction sought which clearly could be reversed if permitted development rights were not taken away. The qualifying criteria under which a householder can exercise their permitted development rights are set out in Class A, Part I of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Members may be familiar with the criteria which, amongst other matters, relate to the size of the works involved, their position relative to a highway and the property boundaries and the extent of the garden area taken up.

The permitted development rights extension allowance in this instance is 70 cubic metres or 15% of the volume of the property whichever is the greater with a maximum ceiling of 115 cubic metres overall.

Legal Framework relating to Permitted Development Rights

For a householder to benefit from the domestic permitted development rights, it had until recently been assumed that the property must be occupied. Case Law has however put a slightly different complexion on this interpretation which now suggests that permitted development rights can be exercised providing the building is completed or "substantially completed." This has been confirmed by the Council's Solicitor who has discussed the situation with Counsel. As an indication of what substantially complete may mean, Circular 10/97 "Enforcing Planning Control, Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements" states that a building is arguably not completed until all the external walls, roof tiling, woodwork, guttering and glazing are finished. It also advises that there would be substantial completion even if internal plastering or internal or external painting needed to be done. A further court case has indicated that the property would be substantially completed providing those remaining elements did not in themselves require planning permission. To make that judgement, would require considering whether the remaining works would materially affect the external appearance of the building.

The Works Undertaken to Create the Raised Wooden Decking

The construction of the raised patio area appears to have commenced in mid May 2000 and been almost completed when one of the officers visited the site on 16 June 2000. Regarding the nature of the building itself, I have ascertained the following chronology of events from Building Control records and from the Enforcement records.

August 1999, demolition of old property and site prepared.

January 1990, slab finished, timber frame and roof constructed.

January 2000, carrying out internal plumbing, heating, water pipes, drainage pipes.

April 2000, started external brickwork enveloping timber frame.

June 2000, property virtually completed externally with fenestration inserted and decorated, guttering up, roof on but pedestrian walkways around edge of building still incomplete. Internally, property near completion with electrical wiring in, kitchen units almost completed, wall tiling almost finished and water was working. Lounge area decorated with emulsion and odd pieces of furniture in there but covered and not in use. Floor was obviously down but not covered.

I have received information from the adjoining property owner and another party who lived in the vicinity until end of July 2000 indicating that work on the decking area started about mid May 2000. At that time, the property is described as far from complete with no electricity supply of its own. At the end of July, it was not occupied. The agent acting for the neighbour contends that until the building is occupied, it has no use in planning terms and therefore no permitted development rights.

Given the circumstances as outlined above and having considered and weighed all the relevant information to hand, I believe that the Local Planning Authority must acknowledge that the property was substantially completed at the time when the decking area was built and therefore the property could benefit from its permitted development rights. In making this judgement, I am also conscious of the fact that Council is being asked to judge on circumstances relating to the condition of the property within literally a matter of weeks before the dwelling was occupied by the owners at which time (subject to the size of the works) they could have exercised their permitted development rights without any doubt. In that context, I am mindful that should the interpretation be made that permitted development rights did not exist at the time that the decking area was commenced, that the Local Planning Authority could be in the invidious situation of seeking a remedy by the removal of the structure only to acknowledge that it could then be reconstructed the next day.

Having ascertained that at the time the decking area was constructed, the property could benefit from its permitted development rights I now turn to the question as to whether or not the structure itself would fall within the limitations set out in the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995.

I have measured and calculated the volume created by the formation of the raised decking area. These calculations have included the area of open ground below the raised deck and have also included the volume enclosed by the railings. This gives a figure of 65.9 cubic metres. On that basis, the works appear to fall within the householders permitted development rights allowance of 70 cubic metres that applies in this instance.

Members should be aware that when the site was first visited by one of the enforcement staff, the householder was advised that planning permission was required for the retention of the decking and a formal application was submitted. This application has attracted strong objections on the grounds of overlooking and whilst I have some sympathies with the views expressed, it is my opinion that householder permitted development rights must be interpreted on size and locational criteria only and Members will note that at no stage do the criteria make any allowance for the potential impact of such works on the privacy or amenity of an adjoining property. It is my view that these national criteria are set in anticipation that works falling with the limitations would have little if any impact on adjoining properties although clearly this is not always the case. Nevertheless, I would urge Members to focus solely on making a decision within the limitations of the framework set out above as I believe that should Members seek to indicate that planning permission is required (at which point, then clearly the impact on the adjoining property would be material consideration), then should planning permission subsequently be rejected and an appeal made, I believe that the first stage of any appeal determination would be whether or not permitted development rights applied, and if so, had been exceeded. In my view, the Inspectorate would find against the Local Planning Authority a wilful disregard of a householders permitted development rights could, I believe, result in a potential Award of Costs against the Authority.

CONCLUSION

Evidence indicates that when the decking area was constructed, that the property, although not occupied, was substantially complete and as such would appear to have been able to benefit from domestic permitted development rights. The size of the extension is such that it falls within the allowances and accordingly, is considered to be permitted development and does not require the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

OPTIONS

1. To accept the interpretation of circumstances as outlined above and advise the applicant together with other interested parties that it is the Local Planning Authority's opinion that the decking area was constructed at a time when the property was considered to be substantially complete and accordingly, was able to benefit from domestic permitted development rights. That on the basis that the size of the decking area is considered to fall below the maximum allowance that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is not required for its retention.

2. That the formal application submitted by the applicant be closed and the planning fee be reimbursed.

3. That the applicant be advised that it is the Local Planning Authority's view that domestic permitted development rights do not commence until a property is occupied as a dwelling house and as such the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is required for the retention of the decking area.

RECOMMENDATION

1. To accept the interpretation of circumstances as outlined above and advise the applicant together with other interested parties that it is the Local Planning Authority's opinion that the decking area was constructed at a time when the property was considered to be substantially complete and accordingly, was able to benefit from domestic permitted development rights. That on the basis that the size of the decking area is considered to fall below the maximum allowance that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority is not required for its retention.

2. That the formal application submitted by the applicant be closed and the planning fee be reimbursed.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

TCP/16883A

(b) TCP/20083C/MB/1360 House and associated haulage yard, land adjoining Place Side and Prospect Road, Cowes

Summary

To consider the release of an Agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which restricts the occupation and future disposal of a dwelling approved in connection with an associated haulage yard at the above site.

Background

In November 1993, the former Borough Council approved, contrary to Officer advice but following a Members site inspection, the construction of a new dwelling required in connection with the operation of a proposed haulage yard which was to be sited on a 0.3 hectare area of undeveloped land at the corner of Prospect Road and Place Road in Cowes. The site was within the development envelope defined in the Cowes Local Plan and also allocated in that plan for industrial purposes. Although recommended for refusal, Members of the former Borough Council Planning Committee decided the application could be approved providing that a Section 106 Agreement was entered into in respect of the following matters:

"(a) not to allow the said dwelling to be occupied until the remainder of the site is in use as a vehicle depot;

(b) the said dwelling should be occupied solely by the owner and/or manager of the remainder of the site in connection with the running of the business on the remainder of the site;

(c) not to sell, let or otherwise dispose of any part or parts of the site as a separate unit or units of accommodation or use to ensure that the whole site remains in one ownership."

Although the recommended reasons for refusal related mainly to the scale of the building, its design, impact on adjoining properties and access to the highway, in approving the application subject to the terms of agreement outlined above, the Planning Authority was clearly concerned to ensure that the dwelling permitted on the industrial land was retained for use in connection with the continued employment uses on that land.

A request has now been received from the occupier of the dwelling, who is a Director of the Transport Company which operates from the adjoining land, asking for the Section 106 Agreement on the property to be lifted. The reasons he sets out are as follows:

"1. The Council Valuation Tax originally set at "G" was lowered to "F" because of the low valuation due to 106. I would now like to reverse this.

2. My house address is Place Road, not Prospect Road and the house and landscaping has blended in perfectly with next door and opposite neighbours.

3. As I near retirement it would be nice to have the option in the future to sell the yard without being forced to sell the house.

4. The 106 severely affects the value of the Deeds as collateral for any future business or private ventures.

5. My wife and I intend to make an up to date Will, my son-in-law runs the business, my other daughter and family live and work in Bournemouth meaning to leave assets and property in reasonable proportion could force one half of the family to sell the business and family home to pay off the other half of the family.

6. We do not intend to sell the home and we do wish to see it handed down to family since we have our seven month old granddaughter's grave in the back garden.

7. Surely a high quality home fitted out with solid oak and indoor swimming pool at a cost price of over �200,000 seven years ago must be worth more than �130,000.

Property valuations are provided confirming the tax banding and figures referred to above.

In order to respond to the request to release the Agreement, the question to be considered by Members is - would the dwelling in question have been approved today, without the requirement for an agreement restricting its occupation and sale?

The site remains within the development envelope for Cowes as defined in the Unitary Development Plan agreed for adoption but is not specifically allocated for any particular purpose. This is because the land previously allocated for industrial purposes in the Cowes Local Plan has now been fully developed. If this were not the case and land were still available for development within the area allocated in the Local Plan, that allocation would have been brought forward into the Unitary Development Plan.

I am satisfied therefore that if similar circumstances pertained today, the dwelling-house would not be approved without the completion of a similar Section 106 Agreement. Whilst the first element of the Agreement (no occupation until vehicle depot in use) has been discharged, the other two elements remain valid in terms of the policy framework for development within the surrounding area. Although adjoined to the northwest by a dwelling-house, there is a substantial natural boundary between that property and the dwelling the subject of the Agreement which "reads" naturally as part of the transport yard adjoining to the south, rather than the residential areas to the north and west.

The request does not identify any overriding planning reasons why the Agreement should be removed. Personal and financial matters would not be considered sufficiently overriding in planning terms; I would have expected reasons relating to the operation of the Company to be provided in support, rather than personal circumstances or preferences of the occupier, all of which could have been foreseen at the time that the Agreement was signed.

Financial Implications

There are no known financial implications.

Options

(a) To agree to the removal of the Section 106 Agreement.

(b) Not to agree to the removal of the Section 106 Agreement, for the reasons set out in the conclusions paragraph below.

Conclusion

Without the Section 106 Agreement restricting occupancy and future disposal of the dwelling, planning permission for its construction would not have been granted. The reason for those restrictions is still valid i.e. the construction of a dwelling necessary to support the proper development of land allocated for employment purposes in the Local Plan. The reasons now put forward by the occupier for the removal of the Agreement are based on personal circumstances and preferences and do not outweigh the valid planning principles which led to the conclusion of the Agreement in the first place.

Recommendation

That the Section 106 Agreement restricting occupancy and disposal of the property be retained.

(c) TCP/23848A/P498/01 Pump house (revised scheme), adjacent former pump house, Esplanade, Ryde

SUMMARY

To seek approval for slight amendments to approved scheme regarding landscaped area.

OPTIONS

1. To continue with the above approach and seek an area for appropriate hardstanding landscaping and an area to facilitate some form of art work.

2. Pursue the soft landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION

To continue with the above approach and seek an area for appropriate hardstanding landscaping and an area to facilitate some form of art work.

BACKGROUND

Members will be aware that this application was approved on 24 April 2001 subject to further guidance and clarifications of intention regarding the soft landscaping area.

Members were concerned that this area would be prone to the elements, as well as human activity and it was debatable whether this would enhance the area or not. After discussion with the applicants, it would appear that it was envisaged that this land would be handed back to the Council in some form for the Council to maintain, or failing this, that they would have to maintain it themselves. They could not be sure that the area would be kept free from litter and damage on a weekly basis and it was felt that a different approach was needed.

Discussions have led us to delete the soft landscaping and look for a landscaped area of agreeable hard materials. This has resulted in the ramp for persons with disabilities being returned into the area and the rest of the area being left open.

I have discussed and agreed with the applicants that this area now affords an opportunity for some form of art work and have agreed a figure to assist in some form of scheme. No scheme type has been decided, although separately I am in discussions with interested parties.

I do not believe it is worthwhile pursing the soft landscaping, as both the schemes should be acceptable and will be judged on their merits.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

D W JAGGAR
Director of Environment Services

1.	TCP/00555/F P/01906/00 former Westlands Sports Ground, Old Road, East Cowes, PO32 6AW	East Cowes
2.	TCP/03617/A P/00186/01 Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301SS	Newport
3.	TCP/03617/B P/00131/01 Picturedrome Theatres Ltd, High Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301SS	Newport
4.	TCP/04443/M P/00606/01 land off Well Road and to rear of 34, York Avenue, East Cowes, PO32	East Cowes
5.	TCP/06438/E P/00263/01 site of former dairy, South Street, Yarmouth, PO41	Yarmouth
6.	TCP/07081/V P/0086/00 land off, Love Lane, Cowes, PO31	Cowes
7.	TCP/07102/S P/01933/00 Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 7, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30	Newport
8.	TCP/07102/T P/01941/00 Bowcombe Meadows Business Park Unit 12, Bowcombe Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO30	Newport
9.	TCP/07933/H P/00435/01 Ocean Deck 50, High Street, Sandown, PO368AE	Sandown
10.	TCP/08200/V P/00374/01 Albion Hotel / Mermaid Cafe, Freshwater Bay, Freshwater, PO409RA	Freshwater
11.	TCP/09518/D P/00422/01 New York House, 12 Castle Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317QY	Cowes
12.	TCP/12553/G P/00291/01 Rychris Court, Victoria Avenue, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin
13.	TCP/16040/D P/00333/01 land between 16 and 20, Church Road, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin
14.	TCP/17998/R P/00252/01 land rear of Coppitts Green, Niton Road, Rookley, Ventnor, PO38	Rookley
15.	TCP/19175/R P/00367/01 Medina View East Cowes Marina, Clarence Road, East Cowes, PO32	East Cowes
16.	TCP/21354/K P/00284/01 Fakenham Farm, Eddington Road, St. Helens, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO331XS	St. Helens
17.	TCP/21596/B P/01855/00 3 Watergate Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301XN	Newport
18.	TCP/22584/C P/00092/01 Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Ningwood, Newport, PO30	Shalfleet
19.	TCP/23601/B P/01831/00 land rear of 40-40A, Station Road, St. Helens, Ryde, PO33	St. Helens
20.	TCP/23877/A P/00308/01 Willow Tree Tea Gardens, High Street, Godshill, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383HZ	Godshill
21.	TCP/23950 P/00117/01 Kingswell Dairy, 391 Newport Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318PP	Northwood
22.	TCPL/24012 P/00386/01 Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF	Ryde
23.	TCPL/24012/A P/00397/01 Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF	Ryde
24.	LBC/24012/B P/00398/01 Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF	Ryde
25.	LBC/24012/C P/00621/01 Ryde House, Binstead Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO333NF	Ryde

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No development shall take place until details of the proposed alterations to the front elevation have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the final finish to the front wall at ground floor level, alterations to the existing fascia and a specification of the design and materials for the replacement doors. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 and B6 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
3	No deliveries or despatches from the premises shall take place outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays, outside the hours of 07.30 to 16.00 on Saturdays and at any times on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.
4	The rating level of the noise emitted from the proposed mechanical services plant, shown on the attached drawing No. 0027/06/A, shall be lower than the "night-time" existing background noise level determined to be LA90 5 minutes 43 dB (in the absence of extraction plant noise from 22 High Street) by at least 3 dB (and shall have no distinguishable tonal component within any Octave Band Level) between 23:00 and 07.00 hours daily, and shall not exceed the existing "daytime" noise level determined to be LA90 60 minutes 51 dB at any time (and shall have no distinguishable tonal component within any Octave Band Level) between 07.00 and 23.00 hours daily. The noise levels shall be determined at the end of the alleyway between the Picturedrome Cinema and No. 22 High Street as close, as is possible, to the boundary with 124 Pyle Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, with the extraction plant at 22 High Street not operating. The measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.
5	Before the proposed mechanical services plant as shown on drawing No. 0027/06/A is used in the proposed development, the plant shall be constructed in such a manner so as to incorporate sound insulating materials and the plant shall be mounted in such a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound, so as to ensure that the noise control measures, in particular paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 as specified in the applicants' noise consultant's report No, 1964.1v1 dated April 2001, are met. These measures shall thereafter be maintained during the use of the premises. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.
6	Prior to the hereby approved use commencing, the proposed noise control measures, to control noise other than from mechanical services plant from this development, as detailed in Section 5 of the applicants acoustic report No. 1964 lvl dated April 2001, shall be implemented in full. These measures shall thereafter be maintained during the use of the premises. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.
7	The kitchen shall be fitted with an extract ventilation system which shall comprise; suitably sealed and fireproof exhaust ducting installed from the point of extraction, to an extractor fan and thence to a suitable point of discharge to atmosphere. The extractor fan shall be appropriately sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential of dis-amenity from noise or vibration such as including where appropriate acoustic housing, silencing and system design. The system shall also incorporate: a pre filter/grease filter, a carbon filter deodoriser, with easy access for cleaning and replacement and adequate provision for access to facilitate dismantling and thorough cleaning. The system shall be maintained and effectively operated during the use of the premises. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and residential properties in particular.
8	Adequate provision must be made for the temporary storage of refuse on the premises and the disposal of litter in the vicinity of it. In particular, suitably sited accommodation shall be provided for waste receptacles which shall be regularly emptied and cleaned as necessary. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	The workshop hereby approved shall only be used as (a) "Light Industrial Building(s)" as defined in Class B1(c) of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, that is to say, as an industrial building, in which the processes carried out, or the machinery installed, are such as can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining residential property in particular.
4	No outside manufacture/storage - D04
5	No outside storage of materials - D05
6	The existing vehicular access to the site from Well Road shall be stopped-up and abandoned and the footway crossing shall be reinstated prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property.

1	The retention of this individual on-site parking space is inconsistent with sustainable transport policies as set out by the Local Planning Authority in Policy TR16 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
2	The retention of an on-site parking space in conjunction with the conversion of The Dairy into residential use is contrary to the prevailing character of the area being designated a Conservation Area and its use would therefore be visually harmful and would not protect and enhance the character and amenities of such areas being contrary to Policy B6 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
3	The retention and extension of the stone boundary wall makes an important contribution to this prominent corner site and this proposal to retain the opening to the parking space will diminish the contribution of that stone wall could make to the area with particular reference to its status as a Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Policy B6 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

1	The proposed variation of condition to remove reference to rented affordable housing would result in the provision of a type of affordable housing which would fail to meet to the identified local need for having for rent on the Isle of Wight confirmed by the Council's Housing Services Needs Survey of 1996/1997 and would not comply with Policy H14 which requires provision to be made in relation to local needs.
2	The information accompanying the application is inadequate inasmuch that it fails to provide evidence to show there is an identified need for shared housing ownership in Cowes and therefore the Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of this variation of the condition in the absence of that information.
3	Approval of this variation of the affordable housing condition to exclude the reference to the requirement for rented accommodation would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, set a precedent for similar proposals prejudicing the Local Planning Authority's policy and to ensure provision of affordable housing for rent through the planning system.

1	The permission hereby granted shall be for the benefit of Mr D.J. Bacon and Ravello Tyre Services Ltd only and for no other persons or company and when they vacate the premises to which this application relates then the use shall revert back to one associated with the general site which is B2 General Industrial Use. Reason: This application has only been approved on the basis of the specific information put forward by the applicant as the Local Planning Authority would not countenance a general retail operation from this site which would be considered contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan, specifically Policy E8.
2	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
3	The landscaping scheme shall be completed within 12 months of the date of this decision notice or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first five years shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the appearance of the development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
4	No vehicles or other articles shall be repaired, stored or displayed for sale on the site outside the building hereby approved and shown coloured red on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision or subsequently approved amendment. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
5	The use hereby approved shall be restricted to the following times of operation: 08.00 hours to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays 08.00 hours to 14.00 on Saturdays and at no times on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residential properties and in accordance with Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
6	Within two months of the date of the decision notice, a plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority identifying the area to be set aside for the storage of scrap tyres. This plan shall include a reference to the maximum height for storage. Only this area as agreed will then be used for storage of scrap tyres hereafter and any excess tyres shall be removed from the site. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	Before any further construction takes place on the site, details of screening to the full length of the north east and south west sides of the decking, to a height consistent with the top of the posts around the perimeter shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme of screening shall be completed prior to the raised decking area hereby approved being brought into use. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.
4	Details of any lighting of the decking area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed scheme shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
5	The use of the decking area (outside of the conservatory) shall be restricted to the hours of 0800 to 2300 on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and 0800 to 2230 hours on Sundays and recognised Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.
6	No amplified music or performances shall be played or take place on the timber decking area or for the benefit of those using the timber decking area at any time without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

1	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in materials and finished in accordance with a schedule to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.
2	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
3	The front boundary wall of the site shall be maintained over the whole length of the site's boundary with Church Road with the exception of the pedestrian access to be formed at the south western extent of the frontage in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.
4	Space for the parking of two cars for the existing property known as Dale Cottage and the proposed dwelling shall be provided and maintained within the area shown edged red accessed from Priory Road as shown on the approved plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety.
5	No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding one metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown coloured yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
6	Provision of turning area - K40
7	The finished ground floor level of the dwelling hereby approved shall be 0.42 metres below road level in accordance with the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area.
8	No further development shall take place until details of earthworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading and moulding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed moulding to existing vegetation and surrounding landform. 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 Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 (Landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	No development shall commence on the site until details of screen planting to the northern boundary have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and to comply with Policy D3 (landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
4	A 1.8 metre hedge shall be maintained in perpetuity to the northern boundary. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and to comply with Policy D3 (landscaping) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier. Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a) No placement or storage of material; (b) No placement or storage of fuels or 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 ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan in compliance with Policy C12 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
3	Before the development commences, a landscaping planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall provide for boundary planting where appropriate. Such scheme shall specify position, species and size of planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years of the date of planting. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual screening in respect of adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (h) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
4	The windows in the north and south facing elevations shall be permanently fixed (non-opening) and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (h) of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to occupation of the extension hereby approved, nine parking spaces as indicated on drawing No. 793.L(2)-011 shall be laid out for use with such spaces being retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision in compliance with Policy TR16 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	The surface water from the development hereby approved shall be disposed of to the main sewer and shall not be disposed of to soakaways. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the dwelling. Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
4	The existing Leylandii hedge along the southern boundary of the site shall be retained and reinforced where necessary to a minimum height of 2.5 metres and to a standard consistent with good arboricultural practice. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
5	The close boarded fencing along the eastern and western boundaries of the site, as detailed on the approved plans, shall be erected prior to the building hereby approved being occupied and retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D1 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 June 2004 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
2	Vehicular movements in connection with the ground maintenance business use shall only occur between 08.00 hours and 17.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or recognised public holidays. Reason: To minimise the disturbance to neighbouring property occupiers in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
3	No machinery shall be operated and no other processes including any repair, maintenance or testing of plant or machinery shall be carried out in respect of the use of the land for ground maintenance business outside the hours of 08.00 to 17.00 Mondays to Fridays or 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. Any maintenance, repair and testing of plant or machinery shall be restricted to equipment relating to the ground maintenance business only and shall be confined to within buildings with doors and windows shut to the hours as above. Reason: To minimise the disturbance to neighbouring property occupiers in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
4	No other commercial vehicles and plant other than those specified by this condition shall be kept on the site unless the express approval has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority to vary this list. Four vehicles, one tractor, two compact tractors, two trailers, garden machinery and wood one chipper. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy G10 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
5	The visibility splay as indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be constructed prior to commencement of the use with such visibility splay being maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to the use hereby approved being implemented, a replacement hedgerow shall be planted along the back edge of the visibility splay referred to in condition 5 above, with such hedge planting being in accordance with a scheme to be agreed. Any hedge planting shall be in the form of native species and shall be protected over an agreed period. Any hedge planting removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting shall be replaced with hedge planting of similar size and species for those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D3 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan.

1	This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2002, on or before which date the buildings shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period. Reason: The buildings are of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
2	The greenhouse/polytunnels shall only be used as a horticultural unit for therapeutic use in connection with the use of Ryde House for purposes within Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and for no other purpose and when the use of the property as a home for persons with learning difficulties cases, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and all associated structures removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition. Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.
3	This permission shall only authorise the use of the premises for the sale of plants and produce actually grown on the premises and not for the sale of produce grown elsewhere or for the sale of growing aids, garden implements, garden furniture, ornaments or any other purpose included within Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.
4	The premises shall only be used for the sale of produce to members of the public between 0900 hours and 1700 hours daily and at no other time. Reason: To safeguard the amenities and character of the area.
5	During the first planting season following the grant of this planning permission, the area immediately around the permitted development shall be landscaped and trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.