PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/22659/B

Mr P Hart against refusal for two storey side extension to form garage and provide additional living accommodation at 17 Great Preston Road, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/25978

Clutterbuck-Edwards against refusal for detached house at junction of Castle Road and Castle Close, Ventnor.

 

 

TCP/26531

Mrs J White and Mrs J West against refusal of outline for bungalow on land rear of 16 and 18 St. Georges Road fronting North Road, Shanklin.

 

 

TCP/19159/B

Mr and Mrs Brownrigg against refusal of outline for a chalet bungalow and garage and formation of vehicular access, land adjacent Greenacre, Southdown Road, Freshwater.

 

 

TCP/10471/E

Mrs Hall against refusal for retention of wind break netting providing temporary screening until planting is established at Timber, Undercliffe Drive, St. Lawrence.

 

 

TCP/26401

Mr M D Cooper against refusal of change of use of land for keeping of horses and erection of stable block/store, land east of Longwood, Lower Road, Adgestone.

 

 

2.

 APPEALS WITHDRAWN

 

 

 

TCP/23408/C

Mr and Mrs G Davis against non determination of application for detached house with garage and formation of vehicular access on land adjacent Woodland House, 28 Victoria Avenue, Shanklin.

 

 

3.

 

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

E/25011/A

Mr and Mrs A Court against enforcement notice relating to the construction of a dwelling not in accordance with the approved plans at Edina, Mill Road, Yarmouth. Inquiry to take place on 8 February 2005.

 

 

 

3.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/6977/L

Mr G Winnard against refusal for demolition of garage/workshop and construction of detached house at 137, Clarence Road, East Cowes.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 14 January 2003.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Dismissed – 22 October 2004.

 

Main Issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the development would appear intrusive in the street scene and out of character with the pattern of development in the area.

 

·         The effect of the proposed access arrangements on highway safety.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          The appearance of the dwelling would not be out of character with the general street scene or appear intrusive and would not conflict with S6, D1 and G4.

 

·          The shared paved area across the frontage of the new and existing dwelling would have insufficient depth for parking other than a small car.

 

·          In the light of level of traffic carried by Clarence Road, parking on the forecourt would be unsatisfactory and potentially hazardous to users of the highway and pedestrians.

 

·          No provision can be made for on site turning and the boundary wall to Alfred Street obstructs visibility.

 

·          The proposal would have an adverse affect on highway safety and be contrary to G4 and TR7 and this outweighs the conclusions that the development would not be intrusive or out of character.

 

 

 

(b)

TCP/15441/C

Mr A Thompson against refusal for demolition of garage and car port and outline for house on land rear of 45 Brook Road, fronting Hyde Road, Shanklin.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 14 April 2004.

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 22 October 2004.

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether the development would appear cramped in the street scene and out of character with the area.

·          The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties with reference to overlooking and loss of outlook.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          The proposal would occupy a substantial part of the site with very little space around the building.

·          This lack of space indicates site is too small to satisfactorily accommodate even a modest dwelling.

·          The development would appear cramped in the street scene and out of character with the area and would conflict with D1, G4 and H5.

·          The physical restraints of the site would make it impractical to design any dwelling without leading to an unsatisfactory degree of overlooking of the adjoining properties.

·          The development would have an adverse affect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties and be contrary to D1 and H5.

 

 

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