1. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 SCHEDULE AND
DECISIONS ARE DISCLOSED FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY.
2. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE. (In some circumstances,
consideration of an item may be deferred to a later meeting).
3. THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION IN THE LIGHT OF FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED
BY THE OFFICERS AND PRESENTED TO MEMBERS AT MEETINGS.
4. YOU
ARE ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000)
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY
ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
5. THE
COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION
TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
The various documents, letters
and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each planning
application or other item of business.
Members are advised that every application on this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and, where necessary, consultations have taken place with the Crime and Disorder Facilitator and Architectural Liaison Officer. Any responses received prior to publication are featured in the report under the heading Representations.
Members are advised that every application on
this report has been considered against a background of the implications of the
Human Rights Act 1998 and, following advice from the Head of Legal and
Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision,
each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for
the recommendation.
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 16 NOVEMBER 2004
|
1. |
TCP/17828/S P/01932/04 Outline for retail unit with
parking (revised scheme) Brickfields, Newnham Road, Ryde |
Ryde |
Refusal |
|
2. |
TCP/20820/C P/00187/04 Erection of livestock building;
proposed access road between Chapel Lane & Merstone Lane; variation of
condition no. 6 on TCP/20820 to allow increased working hours from 0700 to
2300 hours daily Land at Broadfields Farm, Chapel
Lane, Merstone, Newport |
Arreton |
Conditional
Approval |
|
3. |
TCP/24776/B P/01015/04 Formation of new agricultural
access including closing up of an existing access Land north of Padan Aran, Merstone
Lane, Merstone, Newport |
Arreton |
Conditional
Approval |
|
4. |
TCP/25191/F P/01622/04 Erection
of agricultural machinery store Durrants
Farm, Colemans Lane, Porchfield,
Newport |
Calbourne |
Conditional
Approval |
|
5. |
TCP/26454 P/01312/04 Retention
of radio aerial 22
Longmead Road, Ryde |
Ryde |
Conditional
Approval |
|
1. |
TCP/17828/S P/01932/04 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Binstead Registration Date: 13/09/2004 -
Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Mr P Legg Outline for retail unit with
parking (revised scheme) Brickfields, Newnham Road, Ryde,
Isle Of Wight, PO333TH |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The application is being
reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services and by the local Member,
Mr E Fox, at the time of submission.
PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
This application, if
determined at the Development Control Committee on the 16 November will have
been determined within the eight week period.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Site is located
approximately 500 metres south of the end of the residential development of
Newnham Road, Binstead and approximately 1 kilometre north east of Havenstreet.
The site has an overall area of approximately 2 hectares and comprises a series
of buildings of mixed designs, styles and materials, some agricultural in
character and used for various purposes within the equestrian centre. Site has
a frontage to Newnham Road of approximately 200 metres and, overall, a depth of
approximately 150 metres. There are two vehicular accesses in that frontage
although, the northerly access is not the main access to the site for the
public.
Site is used for
equestrian purposes and the existing buildings comprise a small shop, museum of
carriages and other artefacts of considerable age, stabling and the main,
largest building on the site contains an arena, restaurant and bar and small
gift and accessory shop. There is a large car parking area approximately mid
way in the frontage.
The surrounding area is
an open, rural aspect on the outskirts of the Ryde and Binstead area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
Various applications for
development at the equestrian centre dating back to 1982 when an indoor riding
ménage was approved. The site had already been established as a centre related
to horses including a blacksmiths shop, tack and food shop, stables for livery
purposes and an outdoor ménage.
A change of use of
approved viewing gallery to ancillary shop, snack bar, lounge bar, indoor
ménage was approved in January 1983 whilst in August 1985 and exhibition
centre/museum and toilet facilities were approved. In July 1986 a temporary
consent was granted for a one year period to allow for the additional use of
the premises for discos and live groups (maximum of twelve events). A further consent
was granted for that same use in August 1987 expiring in September 1990 but
limiting the use to a maximum of six occasions per year.
A single storey extension
and alterations were approved in April 1990 to provide a small extension to the
shop area and in September 1990, further consent for the use of the premises
for discos and live groups was approved, expiring in September 1995 with a
maximum of six occasions annually. In 1995 a permanent consent was granted for
the additional use of the premises for discos and live groups, again with a
maximum of six occasions per year.
The shop, following the
permission described above had a floor area of 90 m2.
In April of this year an
outline planning application for a retail unit with parking was refused on
grounds of: -
“The proposal represents
the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the existing
establishment and located outside of any town or village centre which would be
contrary to policy R2 (New Retail Development) and Strategic Policy S14 (New
retail development will be expected to locate within existing town centres) of
the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. “
That proposal showed a
freestanding building to be sited on the south east side of the ménage building
close the south eastern boundary of the site. The building was shown to
comprise 222 m2 of warehousing; 60 m2 of staff facility;
932 m 2 of retail; 264 m2 under a canopy with a compound
area of 883 m2. Although in outline form, extensive detail showed
the building to be steel framed, brickwork to a height of approximately 2.5
metres with composite wall cladding panels under a profile box section roof.
Overall height of 7 metres to the ridge and 5.3 metres to eaves. It was
proposed to include in the product list for sale, agricultural goods including
animal feed; fencing and gates; animal health products; vermin control
products; hardware; garden machinery; equestrian products; heating fuel; pet
foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work clothing;
domestic products and gardening products.
In summary it was
considered that the proposals formed the establishment of a very substantial
retail outlet in an out of town location; that there was no justification to
set aside normal policy regarding the establishment of new retail uses and that
such a retail outlet would be more appropriately sited within a town centre or
edge of centre location where it would enhance the retail function of that
town.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
This application is a
resubmission of that previously refused and again seeks outline permission with
all matters reserved for future consideration but including the extensive
details for guidance purposes. The proposal is as before seeking consent for
222 m2 of warehousing; 60 m2 of staff facility; 932 m2
of retail floor space with an external canopy area enclosing 264 m2
and a compound of 883 m2.
The proposed product list
includes agricultural products including animal feeds; fencing and gates;
animal health products; vermin control products; hardware; equestrian products;
pet foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work
clothing; and gardening products. The only products which have been omitted
from the list of those proposed in the previous application are domestic
products, heating fuel and garden machinery.
Although submitted for
guidance purposes the layout is as before with the proposed new building sited
to the south east of the existing ménage and close to the south eastern
boundary of the site, with a substantial car parking area in front comprising
of 66 spaces plus 4 disabled. Access to the site would be again off the south
western most access onto Newnham Road as existing.
Elevations are, again, as
previously submitted, brickwork to a height of 2.5 metres between the steel
columns with composite panels to eaves and a roof of profiled, box section
roofing sheets, both in a white finish.
Building is shown to have overall
dimensions of 32 metres by 41 metres, 5.3 metres to eaves and 7 metres to
ridge.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Site is located outside
of the designated development envelope as shown on the Ryde inset of the
Unitary Development Plan but is under no other notation. The site is not in the
Conservation Area and not in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policies applicable to
this application are: -
G2 – Consolidation Outside Development Envelopes
G4 – General Locational Criteria
G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements
D2 – Standards of Development Within a Site
E1 – Promotion of New Employment Uses
C1 – Protection of Landscape Character
C15 – Appropriate Agricultural Diversification
C24 – Commercial Riding Establishments
TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel
R2 – New Retain development
PPG6 – Town Centres and
Retail Developments applies.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Planning Policy Manager
considers the proposal to be inappropriate due to its size, nature of goods for
sale, the fact that it is neither small nor ancillary. The proposal could be a
'stand alone' use, not relying on the primary use and become the dominant use
of the site.
Highway Engineers
recommend conditions if approved.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Not applicable.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
CPRE object on grounds of
excessive size of shop in an out of town location; generation of excessive
levels of traffic; development contrary to policy; noise and light pollution
and precedent for further, similar consolidating developments.
Two letters of objection
from local residents of generation of traffic, congestion and parking; poor
quality of highway and inadequate access in the widest sense.
CRIME & DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
Relevant officer has been
given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.
However, no crime and disorder implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
This is a resubmission of
the application previously refused on the grounds that this very substantial
retail floor space was not ancillary to an existing activity and that it was in
a location well outside of the town centre or edge of centre, being in a
comparatively isolated, rural area.
Despite the comprehensive
detail submitted with the application describing the appearance of the
building, the application seeks the principle of development and retains all
matters for future consideration. However, as indicative plans have been
submitted, it is clear the nature and scale of the building envisaged if the
application is successful.
The application stands to
be determined on policy and principle and strategic policy S14 and policy R2
assumes that substantial retail development will be expected to be located
within town centres. This is reinforced by policies G1 and G2 which also
expects that development would be located within settlements rather than
outside of designated development envelopes. Policy G2 seeks to prevent
consolidation of scattered dispersed or low density development in the
countryside. Policy G5 allows for some exceptions to rural development restraint
but subject to that development being of benefit to the rural economy, well
designed and landscaped, of an appropriate scale and appropriate to an existing
agricultural, tourism or other activity. Although policy E1 seeks to encourage
development which would provide employment uses, these should be in appropriate
locations and policies D2 and C1 seek to minimise the affect on the amenities
of the area, specifically the countryside in this instance.
Policy C15 supports
appropriate agricultural diversification and it could be argued that, in
principle, the proposed activity is a diversification. However, the scale of
this proposal is disproportionate with the other activities on site and would,
in fact, dominate the overall use for the site.
Whilst policy C24 refers
to commercial riding establishments, which the primary use of this site
presently relates, the establishment of a substantial retail outlet is not
supported by the policy.
Policy TR3 seeks to
locate developments to minimise the need to travel. If a substantial retail
floor space such as that proposed were justifiable, this is not the site upon
which is should be located due to the site’s isolation and inability to be
accessed by public transport or by foot.
Probably the most
important policy in determining this application is R2 which seeks to steer new
retail development to town centres unless they are small shops which would
serve a local need or are located within an existing village settlement or
ancillary to a tourism or farming operation. The existing shop on site has a
floor area of approximately 90 m2. The current application seeks to
establish a retail floor space of more than 10 times than area and, in
addition, an open canopy area of a further 264 m2 of open retail
area with additional open air areas of 883 m2. This combined floor
area for retailing could not be described as ancillary or small and would, in
fact, dominate the other uses on site establishing a very substantial retail
outlet in an out of town location.
Bearing in mind the list
of goods proposed to be retailed, many of these products are already found
within town centre retail outlets and in small, ancillary retail outlets
associated with other activities. Few need to be retailed in a rural location
and retailing from this site will rely on a majority of its customers accessing
the site by car although it is acknowledged that some may be accessing the site
for the other facilities on the site as well.
The establishment of this
substantial retail outlet is overtly contrary to several of the detailed
policies in the UDP as well as strategic policies S14, S1 and S4. Accordingly I
consider the development to be inappropriate in principle.
Turning to the details
submitted, these are submitted for guidance purposes but the style and
appearance of the building is, in my view, inappropriate in this rural location
due to its design, materials and colours which are more consistent with an
industrial building.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to
the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the
owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is
considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate
aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
The proposal seeks to
establish a very substantial retail outlet in the countryside, well divorced
from a town centre and could not be described as being one which is edge of
centre. The scale of the building and the purpose to which it is proposed to be
put are not ancillary to an existing, established use as it is felt that it
would dominate and become the primary use of the site. Accordingly the
development is contrary to policies R2 (New Retail Development) and policies
S14, S1 and S4.
RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
|
The proposals represent
the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the
existing establishment and located outside any town or village centre which
would be contrary to Policy R2 (New Retail Development) and strategic policy
S14 (New retail development would be expected to locate within existing town
centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
2. |
TCP/20820/C P/00187/04 Parish/Name: Arreton
Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 27/01/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Marvel Farms Erection of livestock building;
proposed access road between Chapel Lane & Merstone Lane; variation of
condition no. 6 on TCP/20820 to allow increased working hours from 0700 to
2300 hours daily land at Broadfields Farm, Chapel
Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30 |
This is a joint report with
TCP/24776/B – P/01015/04.
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
These applications are particularly
contentious and have attracted a substantial number of representations.
LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Broadfields Farm is a farming
operation which comprises several tracts of land in the Merstone locality, some
fronting Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane, and some to the north of Rookley
village abutting Blackwater Hollow and some on Blackwater Road. There are buildings situated on the Chapel
Lane frontage comprising existing farm buildings and a packing and grading
plant for potatoes on the southern side of Chapel Lane.
Merstone Village is situated to the
east of this tract, the area is a predominantly rural, agricultural landscape.
DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS
Application seeks consent for the
retention of a vehicular access where work has commenced.
The second application is in three
elements comprising the alteration of the condition on a previous permission
relating to the potato grading plant to allow its operation between the hours
of 0700 to 2300 hours daily; the construction of an access road of
approximately 600 metres running between Merstone Lane and Chapel Lane close to
the south eastern boundary of land within the applicant's ownership; and the
erection of a livestock building.
The access point in Merstone Lane is
approximately 200 metres south of the junction with Merstone Lane at Croucher's
Cross and the access onto Chapel Lane is shown to be almost due north of the
potato grading plant. The application
states that the road will be a rolled gravelled finish, without kerbs, using a
natural drainage regime and for use only by traffic connected with the
operation of the potato grading plant and farm vehicles which would otherwise
use Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane. The
third part of the application seeks consent for the erection of a livestock
building, proposed to be located to the south of the main complex of buildings
in Broadfields Farm, a building shown to be almost 46 metres by just over 15
metres, open fronted to the north east elevation, constructed in steel framing
and clad in profiled sheet cladding with windproof netting above ground for the
first 2 metres.
A fourth element of the application
(but which has now been omitted) was for outline permission for the erection of
a dwelling on the south side of Chapel Lane, just to the east of the potato
packing plant.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
The site is well outside any designated
development envelope and therefore shown as countryside within the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Policy E8 - relates to Employment in
the Countryside.
Policy B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage is applicable.
PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental
Quality and Economic and Social Development) advises Local Planning Authorities
on matters relating to the countryside, agriculture and other development.
Policy TR7 relates to Highway
Considerations for New Development.
The site is not within an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and no other designations affect the site.
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
Memorandum from the County
Archaeologist registering an objection to the development on the grounds of a
loss of not only the hedgerow but of the bank upon which the hedgerow is growing. This substantial hedgerow is designated under the criteria
the hedgerow regulations as an important hedgerow for two reasons:
a) It existed prior to 1850
and was recorded on the IOW County SMR (Site and Monument Record) at the
relevant date
b)
It incorporates an archeological feature which is recorded on the County SMR
The hedgerow sits on top of an
archeological linear boundary bank which runs the entire length of the island
from Kings Quay to St Radagunds Path and which pre dates some medieval parish
boundaries which run into it and respect it. It is a continuous boundary which
is shown on the 1793 and 1860 OS maps and it is likely that it dates from
Roman, Saxon or early medieval times. The County Archeologist considers that
this is probably the most important boundary on the Island from an
archeological perspective; that the removal of a 270 metre length of this
monument would have a negative impact on the archaeology and ecology of the
Island would set entirely the wrong precedent for the Council's operation of
this statutory instrument (The Hedgerows Regulations 1997).
The County Archaeologist points out
that there are other ancient monuments in the area too but reluctantly accepts
the loss of the hedgerow so long as the roadside bank is not disturbed in any
way and is turfed over to give protection. The replanting of the hedgerow
behind visibility splay is recommended.
The Countryside Officer points out
that development is contrary to Policy C13 which states that development
proposals which are likely to adversely effect an important hedgerow or its
location directly or indirectly, will not be permitted.
Environmental Health Officer has
been specifically consulted following members concerns about noxious odours and
referring to another case. No comment is made on the current proposal and the
Environmental Health Officer points out that as there is no sludge treatment
facility and as the area is predominantly agricultural, odours associated with
the agricultural activity will be the same as usual in such an area.
However, in an earlier memorandum
Environmental Health Officer suggests:
6.
Any limits on deliveries to and from the premises should be retained.
Noise from vehicles at the site would still disturb if occurring at night.
7.
That no activity which takes place between 23.00 and 07.00 hrs. is
audible at the boundaries of any noise sensitive premises.
8.
That lorry movements should be restricted to the same hours of the
potato packing plant operation.
Highway Engineers recommend refusal,
comments summarised as follows; the full memorandum is appended at the end of
this report.
SUMMARY
This is an extremely complicated
application and a lot of time has been spent discussing the various issues and
attempting to negotiate a suitable solution. The main points that need to be
borne in mind are as follows:
1. The
application seeks to create an access, substandard in terms of visibility, onto
Merstone Lane.
2. The
application seeks to create an access, substandard in terms of visibility, onto
Chapel Lane.
3. The opening of an access onto Chapel
Lane creates a crossroads with the existing Broadfields
Farm access encouraging slow moving traffic to perform a dangerous manoeuvre to
cross Chapel Lane.
4. The construction of a haul road in this
location will reduce the amount of traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles,
using the junction of Merstone Lane and Chapel Lane; thus improving highway
safety.
5. By
removing this traffic from Chapel Lane there would be worthwhile environmental benefits
to the residents.
6. That there is no reported history of
accidents at the junction of Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane that can be
associated with its inadequacy in terms of visibility and its use by H.G.Vs.
After evaluating the above points it
is our conclusion that as an overall concept it is not sound highway safety
practice to allow two new substandard accesses
to be opened in order to alleviate the perceived problems at one
junction.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS
Arreton Parish Council object to the
loss of the hedgerow.
Arreton Parish Council also object
to the variation in hours due to adverse effect on adjoining properties; object
to dwelling as the site is outside the designated development envelope and that
there are existing vacant properties in the village; state that the building is
currently used for furniture storage and not grading of potatoes; adverse
effect of the development on adjoining properties, suggesting that the disused
potato grading shed is not used for its authorized purpose but should be used
for sheep as the proposed livestock building.
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS
Ramblers Association, whilst not
objecting, raise concern at the possible effects on the right of way, requesting
conditions be imposed to ensure the right of way remains open at all times,
suggesting safeguards to protect users of the footpath.
CPRE object to all aspects of the
development, raising suspicion over future intentions of use of the building, that
there is no established need for such provision; adverse effect on at least two
properties; that there is no need for increased hours; no need for a dwelling
on the site, and objecting to the adverse effects of noise from traffic and
from increased working hours.
One letter of representation, not
objecting but raising concerns over use of the road, its construction and to
the amended hours condition, but so long as such conditions are in force, no
objection would be raised. Writer
opposes the establishment of a dwelling.
12 letters of objection from local
residents on grounds of development contrary to UDP policy; suggesting that
Isle of Wight Potatoes is not trading and therefore the road is not required,
neither is the extension to operating hours; suggests that proposals represent
an increase in industrial use of buildings; that the livestock building is not
justified nor necessary and that there is no need for a dwelling. Writers point out that other dwellings are
available in the village. Roadway of
inadequate construction likely to result in generation of noise and dust from
frequency and times of traffic moving along the new road. One writer suggests that grading plant
should be moved to alternative building thus allowing the existing building to
be used for livestock and precluding the need for a further building.
Development out of keeping with the character of the area.
Two letters of support from local
residents stating that roadway may remove traffic from the village thereby
causing less effect on majority of properties, and support the development
providing need for a dwelling is proven.
One further letter from a resident
of Chapel Lane expressing no objection in principle but raise the following:
·
In respect of the livestock building, that satisfactory drainage and
slurry disposal is carried out;
·
In respect of the access road, the use during the summer has been a
'resounding' success. Raising concern that the access road is constructed to an
adequate standard to cope with the expected volume of traffic; and that the
work is completed within a reasonable timescale, and linked to the extended
working hours. Suggests a trial period of extended working hours (perhaps a
year).
·
In respect of the extended working hours that it relates only to the
grading, washing and picking of potatoes and does not impact on the local
environment.
CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
Relevant Officer has been given the
opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not, however, anticipated that there
will be any crime and disorder implications.
EVALUATION
These applications now seek consent
for three elements. These refer to the new livestock building; the formation of
the access road from Chapel Lane, from the west side of those properties
fronting Merstone Lane and exiting on to Merstone Lane as detailed above and ,
finally, the variation of the condition which limits the operation of the
potato grading plant to the hours 07.30 to 18.00 Monday to Saturday thus
allowing the use of the building on a daily basis between the hours of 07.00
and 23.00 hours. The use of the building for that time period specified is
closely linked with the construction of the access road, that is to say the
construction of the access road is proposed to be carried out to eliminate some
objection to the increased operating hours by taking heavy vehicles out of the
centre of the village and especially the junction of Merstone Lane with Chapel
Lane.
The proposed livestock building is
proposed to be located close to the existing agricultural building of similar
proportions and sited approximately 11 metres from it and in a position which
relates directly to other farm buildings in the vicinity. The need for
agriculture buildings does not have to be justified.
The proposed building is typical of
a modern farm building being steel framed and clad roof and part of the sides
down to a height of 2.1 metres above ground floor where wind proof netting
would be applied on the rear and side of the building with the front left open,
the front being the north eastern elevation. Building is 4.2 metres to eaves
and approximately 8 metres to the ridge, overall dimensions of 45 metres x 15
metres and proposed to be used for lambing and other agricultural activity. In
my view this building is appropriately sited and providing the materials used
are in a dark green finish, I do not consider the impact will be severe.
It is my view that the alteration of
the condition as proposed should not be accepted unless some mitigation of the
vehicle impacts on the village and other residential property can be
incorporated. The proposed road is about 600 metres in length and its use would
divert much traffic away from the Chapel Lane and Merstone Lane parts in the
village and at the junction where the use by heavy lorries has generated much
opposition on the grounds of noise and disturbance. The implementation of the
proposed road would therefore reduce the impact on the local property thus
allowing a possible increase in the hours of operation without commensurate
impacts on property.
The Merstone Lane junction of the
new road does, however, require substantial visibility splays due to the
unrestricted speed of traffic (national speed limit) where splays of 120 metres
in a southerly direction and 150 metres in a northerly direction with an X
dimension of 4.5 metres means that approximately 270 metres of ancient hedgerow
would be affected. Important archeological information would be lost since not
only would the hedgerow have to be removed but the bank upon which it sits, a
bank which contains the archeological artefacts and which in its own right is
an archaeological monument would also have to be removed.
The choice is therefore the desire
to take heavy traffic out of the village by agreeing the new access road
weighed against the loss the hedgerow and bank and the implication regarding
archaeology and ecology, with a background of inadequate visibility splays.
The main determining factor to be
resolved is the conflict resulting from the archaeological interest and the
highway safety aspect. To sum up, the County Archaeologist points out the
importance of the hedgerow and roadside boundary which is a feature of the
County Site and Monument Record and strenuously resists the loss of the hedgerow
but more importantly the bank upon which it is situated. The Highway Engineers
do not wish to accept the formation of an access on to either Merstone Lane or
Chapel Lane without the visibility splays normally required, which, in the case
of Merstone Lane would mean the removal of 270 m of hedgerow and the
substantial reduction in height of the bank (the archaeological feature) to a
height of 1.05 m On Chapel Lane visibility splays are not possible to form
within the frontage owned by the applicant.
The options open to Members are:
1. Approve the applications subject to the condition regarding
visibility splays, and accept the loss of
the archaeological feature.
2. Approve the applications
losing the hedgerow only but preserving the bank and requiring the replanting
of the hedge thus not providing the recommended visibility splays but preserving
the archaeological feature.
3. Refuse the application on
grounds of inadequate visibility and loss of archaeological features and
commence Enforcement Action against the works which have already been implemented
namely the formation of the accesses onto Merstone Lane and Chapel Lane, and
the construction of the access road across the field.
A certain amount of damage has
already been effected to the archaeological feature by the removal of a section
of bank and hedge and I would not wish to see more damage occurring. Bearing in
mind the road and accesses would be used by agricultural and haulage vehicles
mostly in connection with the operation of the potato grading plant and the
fact that the road would not be a public thoroughfare, I consider the
limitations on visibility by the retention of the archaeological feature and
that the benefits by the likely reduction in noise impacts on the Merstone
residents by re-routing traffic associated with the potato grading plant out of
the village outweighs the disadvantages of the provision of full visibility
splays and recommend accordingly.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this recommendation to
grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in
Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to
Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The impacts this development
might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other
third parties have been carefully considered.
Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people
this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in
the manner proposed. Insofar as there
is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan
and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the
evaluation section above, the balance in striking a decision in this instance
turns primarily on the importance of the archeological feature, namely the
hedgerow and bank and the significant loss the 270 metres visibility splays
would require. The splays can be provided in part by resiting the hedgerow
behind the splay lines. The bank will be retained and as the access will be
used by large vehicles the reduction in bank height will not prevent the
vehicles being seen or their drivers visibility in either direction in Merstone
Lane. Chapel Lane is not heavily trafficked and speeds are comparatively low
but signage will need to be added to warn drivers of emerging vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
- APPROVAL (BOTH APPLICATIONS)
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Within one month of the
date of this permission a comprehensive landscaping scheme shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented
in the first planting season following approval. Reason: In the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
Visibility splays of X
= 4.5 m; Y = 150 m in a northerly direction and Y = 120 m in a southerly
direction shall be formed within one month of the date of this permission, at
the junction of the access road with Merstone Lane by the removal of the
hedgerow only in accordance with Condition 3 below. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
3 |
The hedgerow in the visibility
splay required by condition 2 above shall be removed by cutting then
poisoning the remaining stumps and roots. No hedgerow plant shall be dug or
grubbed out and any successive growth within the visibility splay shall be
removed by the same method to retain the visibility splay free from
obstructions. Reason: In the interests of the
Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The earthwork bank to
Merstone Lane shall be retained in its entirety and no further re-moulding
shall take place; the cleared earthwork bank within the visibility splays
shall be turfed and so maintained hereafter in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
A new hedgerow of
species to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority shall be
planted along but behind the full length of the visibility splays (except
where the access breaches) within one month of the date of this permission.
Thereafter the replacement hedgerow shall be retained, replanted as necessary
and maintained in a manner consistent with good arboricultural practice. Reason: To ensure the
continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply
with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
No development shall
take place until the developer has secured a programme of archaeological
works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure
access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to
comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10
(Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
To facilitate
monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start
date and appointed archaeological contractor shall be given in writing to the
address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works: The County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: To ensure that details
of the archaeological site can be properly investigated prior to any
development of that part of the site being carried out and to comply with
policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens
and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Before the livestock
building hereby approved is commenced, samples of the materials and finishes
to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
9 |
This permission shall
authorise the use of the potato grading plant to the hours of 07.00 hours to
23.00 hours daily and the building shall not be used nor vehicles dispatched
or received other than between those hours. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and the nearby residential properties in particular in
accordance with Policies D1, E6 and E8 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
10 |
The increased hours of
operation of the potato grading plant hereby approved shall only operate
whilst all haulage traffic associated with that use approaches and departs
from the plant via the new access hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and the nearby residential properties in particular in
accordance with Policies D1, E6 and E8 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
11 |
Within one month of
this decision, traffic signage shall be displayed in accordance with a scheme
to be agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
12 |
The access road shall
incorporate necessary measures to ensure that the right of way (A1) is not
compromised and to public right of way shall remain open at all times. Reason: In the interests of
highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
13 |
Submission of samples/details -
S03 |
3. |
TCP/24776/B P/01015/04 Parish/Name: Arreton
Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 10/05/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Applicant: Marvel Farms Formation of new agricultural access
including closing up of an existing access land north of Padan Aran, Merstone
Lane, Merstone, Newport, PO30 |
This is a joint report - details in
Application TCP/20820/C
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Within one month of the
date of this permission a comprehensive landscaping scheme shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented
in the first planting season following approval. Reason: In the interests of the
visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy C1 of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
2 |
Visibility splays of X
= 4.5 m; Y = 150 m in a northerly direction and Y = 120 m in a southerly
direction shall be formed within one month of the date of this permission, at
the junction of the access road with Merstone Lane by the removal of the
hedgerow only in accordance with Condition 3 below. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan.. |
|
3 |
The hedgerow in the visibility splay
required by condition 2 above shall be removed by cutting then poisoning the
remaining stumps and roots. No hedgerow plant shall be dug or grubbed out and
any successive growth within the visibility splay shall be removed by the
same method to retain the visibility splay free from obstructions. Reason: In the interests of the
Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
4 |
The earthwork bank
shall be retained in its entirety and no further re-moulding shall take
place; the cleared earthwork bank within the visibility splays shall be
turfed and so maintained hereafter in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
Archaeological value of the site and in accordance with Policy B9 of the IOW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
A new hedgerow of
species to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority shall be
planted along but behind the full length of the visibility splays (except
where the access breaches) within one month of the date of this permission.
Thereafter the replacement hedgerow shall be retained, replanted as necessary
and maintained in a manner consistent with good arboricultural practice. Reason: To ensure the
continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and to comply
with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
6 |
No development shall take place until the
developer has secured a programme of archaeological works in accordance with
a written scheme of investigation which has been agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure
access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to
comply with policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10
(Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
To facilitate
monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start
date and appointed archaeological contractor shall be given in writing to the
address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any works: The County Archaeologist County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Newport Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: To ensure that details
of the archaeological site can be properly investigated prior to any
development of that part of the site being carried out and to comply with
policies B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) and B10 (Parks and Gardens
and Landscapes of Historic Interest) of the IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
8 |
Within one month of
this decision, traffic signage shall be displayed in accordance with a scheme
to be agreed in writing with the local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to
comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
4. |
TCP/25191/F P/01622/04 Parish/Name: Calbourne
Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 29/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: Mrs S Hicky Erection of agricultural machinery
store Durrants Farm, Colemans Lane,
Porchfield, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304PE |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The Local Member,
Councillor Jill Wareham, when consulted under the delegation procedure
requested that the application is reported to the Development Control
Committee, as she is concerned over the siting of the building within the rural
landscape. She considers that the new building should be sited close to the
existing buildings thereby obviating the need for any new access tracks or
other hard surfaces. Furthermore, she considers that the new building should
not be constructed until the existing ones have been demolished.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken sixteen weeks to the date
of the committee meeting and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for
determination of applications due to the need to obtain further information
from the applicant's agent.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The application site lies
within the countryside set well back from and, accessed off Coleman’s Lane,
Porchfield. The overall landscape is predominantly agricultural land having a
relatively level topography with slight undulations. There are a number scattered housing units and farms located
within the locality. The road frontage
is surrounded by either mature trees or extensive hedge boundaries that protect
general vista’s into independent curtilages.
The Durrants farm holding
is extensive, extending to 40 hectares.
This agricultural unit is subdivided into smaller field parcels using
established hedgerows. The access track
extends around 500 m into the farming unit, being in reasonable isolation to
other buildings in the area. The existing holding consists of a modest size
farm house and 5 separate farm buildings of varying size, scale and mass that
are reasonably grouped in a consolidated from.
The buildings themselves vary in construction ranging from concrete
block, rendered or iron clad facades.
The development site lies
to the east of the existing complex of buildings in an adjacent field,
approximately 30 m to the nearest building.
The field itself slopes in a north south direction and is enclosed by
established hedges and scattered mature trees. The proposed site of the
building is currently grassland and is accessed via a five bar gate in the
southwest corner of the field.
RELEVANT HISTORY
TCP/25191 - Demolition of
farmhouse; erection of detached farmhouse.
Granted planning approval through delegated decision 17 February 2003.
TCP/25191/A – Conversion
of 2 stores and 2 barns into self contained units of holiday
accommodation. Withdrawn by applicant
10 March 2003.
TCP/25191/B - Demolition
of an existing farmhouse; erection of a detached farmhouse with an integral
garage and a vehicular access. Refused
planning permission through delegated decision 5 February 2003, as the dwelling
was not considered to be of a similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling
as well as the development would adversely affect a section of important
hedgerow. Decision upheld at Appeal 15
September 2004.
TCP/25191/C – Formation
of vehicular access and access road to Durrants Farm. Refused planning
permission through delegated decision 10 May 2004 as the proposal would involve
in an unacceptable loss of hedgerow and the information accompanying the
application was inadequate and deficient in detail relating to scale drawings
TCP/25191/D – Demolition
of farmhouse; erection of detached farmhouse (revised scheme). Refused planning permission through
delegated decision 29 June 2004, as the dwelling was not considered to be of a
similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling as well as the development
would adversely affect a section of important hedgerow. The information accompanying the application
was inadequate and deficient in detail relating to scale drawings.
AGN/25191/E – Erection of
agricultural machinery store. The Local
Planning Authority raised objection as sufficient justification was not
submitted for the barn to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of
agriculture 29 June 2004
DETAILS OF THE
APPLICATION
The Local Planning
Authority recently raised objection to the development under the Agricultural
Prior Notification procedure as the applicant did not submit reasonable
justification for the structure, which is a requirement under the General
Permitted Development Order, 1995, Part 6, Class A (Agricultural Buildings and
Operations). Therefore it was deemed
necessary for the applicant to submit a formal planning application.
The proposal is for the
erection of multipurpose agricultural building measuring 22.7 metres in length,
19.8 metres in width and 7.8 metres in height (to ridge). The total footprint will cover 449
sq/m. The building would be sub-divided
into three sections, of which 224 sq/m is to be used for machine storage, while
the remaining will be left as open frontage for the accommodation of
livestock. The external facade will be
clad in green PVC coated profile steel with a part green-translucent roof for
filtration of light into the building.
Two reports submitted
with the application identify that the existing buildings on the farming unit
are to be demolished, therefore only utilising this building for the farming
activity. In addition the applicant
wishes to increase the farming operation on the land, increasing cattle and
sheep stocks within his ownership and creating a new poultry enterprise. The justification states that existing
buildings are not suited to modern farming operations and the consolidation is
less visually intrusive due to being sited further from a public footpath, but
also being set within a natural hollow.
The building would be
positioned in the corner of the field using the natural screening on the south
and east elevations. The remaining
elevations are exposed to open fields.
Three established trees lie in the South East corner of the site, all of
which are to be retained. An access
track will extend from the existing driveway to the building.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies of the
Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
·
S4-Countryside Protected from inappropriate development
·
S6 -High Standard of Design
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria
·
G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements
·
D1- Standards of Design
·
D3 - Landscaping
·
C1- Protection of landscape character
·
C14 – Safeguard Best
Agricultural Land
·
C18 - Agricultural Support Activities
·
P1 – Pollution and Development
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
The Environment Agency
recommends to conditions should the application be approved.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
Calbourne Parish Council
objects to the application as the layout/density of the building is out of
character with the landscape character. In addition, the Parish Council comment
that the use of the building has not been fully detailed to their satisfaction.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has
attracted 3 letters of objection that can be summarised as follows;
·
The barn is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.
·
Sufficient justification has not been submitted with the application
·
The agricultural activity within the farming unit is minimal. The applicant does not farm on the land, but
uses two neighbouring farmers who act as tenants for grazing cattle on the
land.
·
Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary
·
Scale and mass of development does not relate to farming activity
·
The applicant should reuse existing farming buildings on the land
·
Impacts on landscape character and rural setting
·
The building will be used for activities unrelated to farming operations
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The main consideration to
this application is whether the siting, scale, mass and design of the building
will adversely affect the visual amenities of the area to the detriment of the
rural character.
The site itself has good
natural screening to the south and east elevations, with an established hedge
screening part of the building. By
reason of the topography of the land much of the northern elevation of the
building will be screened. The building
will be sited within a natural hollow, making long distance vista
protected. Although there is a natural
hollow within the topography, the majority of the landscape is relatively flat
with no hills or slopes in close proximity giving rise to views across this
landscape. Therefore this building will
lie in isolation and seclusion to the wider landscape context. Members should note that if this
application is approved a further landscaping scheme is conditioned for the
northern elevation, with a management scheme over a 5 year period. The building
is sited approximately in the middle of the 40 ha holding, having no visual
impact or loss of amenity to any third parties.
The existing farm
buildings although consolidated in one area, are in a poor state of repair and
do not make a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the
countryside. It is accepted that these
buildings would not be practical for modern farming operations and the proposal
would concentrate farming activity into one usable form. Should members be
minded to approve the application, I would recommend a condition requiring
demolition of the existing buildings and the landscaping of the land with a
detailed scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Members should note that there is not only a
reduction in size and amount of buildings in the area but also a reduction in
usable space about the buildings, namely being hardstandings. By returning the land to its former
condition there will actually be an increase in ‘green space’ contributing to the
visual amenities of the countryside.
Third party
representation states that the scale and mass of the building is not
appropriate to the landscape character and farming operation. In calculation and review of the plans there
is a 103 sq/m reduction in footprint, reducing the overall mass, scale and
level of operation the farming unit will use.
There has been concern that the building will not be used for
agricultural purposes. In this respect, members will note that one of the
recommended conditions would restrict use for this purpose.
With regard to the other
issues raised in the representations the application does not require the
submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment, as designated under the
Regulations 1999. With regard to the human rights of the applicant, the Local
Planning Authority are satisfied that sufficient justification has been
submitted to regard this structure to be reasonably necessary for the purposes
of agriculture.
Having due regard to
policies contained within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, the
conditions applied to an approval by Members at this Development Control
Committee with the removal of existing buildings on the farming unit while
restoring the land to its former condition, I am satisfied that there will be
no adverse impact in developing this building in the location designated and in
the context of the wider rural landscape.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in article 8 (Rights to Privacy) and article 1 of the First
Protocol (Rights to peoples enjoyment of possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the
owners/occupiers of other properties in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant
to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference
with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the
rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is
proportional to the legitimate aim of the Councils Unitary Development Plan and
in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, I am satisfied that the proposed store would not have a detrimental
impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual
amenities and character of the locality. Therefore, I am satisfied that the
proposal does not conflict with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan
RECOMMENDATION
– APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Time limit - full -
A10 |
|
2 |
The building hereby
approved shall be used solely for purposes associated with agriculture, and
shall not be used for any other purpose whatsoever unless prior written
approval has been granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policies S4 (Countryside Protected
from Inappropriate Development), D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of
Landscape Character) and C18 (Agricultural Support Activities) of the Isle of
Wight Unitary Development Plan. |
|
3 |
The buildings
identified in the report forming part of this application by Creasey, Biles
and King, photographs 1 - 5, page 3 and 4 shall be demolished and permanently
removed from the site within 6 months of the erection to the hereby approved
building. The land shall be restored and landscaped thereafter within a
further period of 6 months in accordance with a detailed scheme to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any
development commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design),
D3 (Landscaping), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C18
(Agricultural Support Activities) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development
Plan. |
|
4 |
No development shall
take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from
roofs and paved areas hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme as approved shall be completed before any [residential]
unit hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is
satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in
Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW
Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5 |
Bunding of tanks -detailed
requirements - V10 |
|
6 |
No development shall
take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority a tree planting scheme to landscape the north and
south elevations of the hereby approved building. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design)
and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan. |
|
7 |
All planting, seeding
or turfing comprised in the approved details in accordance with condition 6
of this decision notice shall be carried out in the first planting and
seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion
of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which
within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are
removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next
planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local
Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the
development is satisfactory and to comply with policy D3 (Landscaping) of the
IW Unitary Development Plan. |
|
5. |
TCP/26454 P/01312/04 Parish/Name: Ryde
Ward: Ryde South East Registration Date: 14/07/2004 -
Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Long Tel: (01983) 823854 Applicant: A to B Taxis Retention of radio aerial 22 Longmead Road, Ryde, Isle Of
Wight, PO332TN |
REASON FOR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
The Local Member,
Councillor Chapman has asked the application to go before the Development
Control Committee, as he is the Chair of the Licensing Committee and therefore
unable to process the application under the delegated procedure due to
potential conflict of interest.
PROCESSING INFORMATION
This is a minor
application, the processing of which will have taken sixteen weeks to the date,
primarily due to the need to report matters to Committee and the delay in
receiving additional information requested. A determination at this meeting
would mean that the application had been dealt with outside the prescribed time
limits.
LOCATION & SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
The area is residential,
varying in architectural style and character. Longmead Road itself has a
relatively steep gradient that runs in an east–west direction. Dwellings step
down in a linear uniform manner with the natural topography, in detached and
semi detached blocks. Small front gardens and Longmead Road separates adjacent
dwellings giving a relative openness to the area. Most houses have television aerials being attached to the chimney
breast or projecting from the roof pitch at an approximate height of 2m.
RELEVANT HISTORY
No relevant history
DETAILS OF THE
APPLICATION
Consent is sought for the
retention of a radio aerial that measures and projects 5m from the of roof
ridge to the dwelling house.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY
Relevant policies of the
Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:
·
G4 - General Locational Criteria
·
D1 - Standards of Design
·
D8 - Telecommunications Equipment on Buildings
·
U17 – Telecommunication Facilities
CONSULTEE RESPONSES
None.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
COMMENTS
None.
THIRD PARTY
REPRESENTATIONS
The application has
attracted six letters of objection that are summarised as follows;
·
Creates additional traffic along Longmead Road, which could increase
danger to children playing within the area
·
Taxi’s use up residents parking allocation along Longmead Road
·
Causes television interference
·
The premises needs a change of use application
·
Increase noise nuisance within street
CRIME AND DISORDER
IMPLICATIONS
No crime and disorder
implications are anticipated.
EVALUATION
The key issue relating to
this application is whether the retention of the radio aerial or any associated
usage would detract from the amenities of the area, prejudicing the character
and amenities enjoyed by local residents.
In relation to a number
of points raised by third parties the aerial serves as a remote
telecommunication facility that directs taxis to their respective jobs. There is therefore no change of use of the
premises, as the predominant use still remains as residential. In terms of taxi’s visiting the premises,
the Local Planning Authority would be unlikely support such a use and should
such activity occur the matter would be investigated to establish whether a breach
of planning had taken place.
As members will be aware
television interference is regulated by OFFCOM.
The aerial itself is of a
standard width but does taper off at the end. The overall length is 5m.
Longmead Road has a
relatively steep topography, making residential dwellings step down in a
uniform manner. There are a large
number of television aerials within the area, so by reason of its position,
relationship with the street scene and topography the aerial is deemed to cause
no loss of amenity to the locality or prejudice the character of the
residential dwelling, architectural style or third parties.
HUMAN RIGHTS
In coming to this
recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the
rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First
Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the
owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have
been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the
rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the
applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an
interference with the right of others it is considered necessary for the
protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered
that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan and in the public interest.
JUSTIFICATION FOR
RECOMMENDATION
Having given due regard
and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this
report, I am satisfied that the retention of the aerial would not have a
detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from
the visual amenities and character of the locality. In this regard the proposed
development would comply with the policies G4 –(General Locational Criteria),
D1 (Standards of Design), D8 (Telecommunication Equipment on Buildings) and U17
(Telecommunication Facilities)
RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL
Conditions/Reasons:
|
1 |
Any apparatus hereby
approved shall be removed from the building on which is it situated as soon
as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for
telecommunication purposes; and such building shall be restored to its
condition before the development took place. Reason: To comply with policy D8
(Telecommunications Equipment on Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development
Plan. |
Head of Planning Services