PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2003

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES

WARNING

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.

Background Papers

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 APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

16 DECEMBER 2003

1.	TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW	Ryde	Conditional Approval
2.	TCP/01680/J P/01221/03 1 Wheatsheaf Lane, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410PF	Yarmouth	Conditional Approval
3.	A/02327 P/01604/03 18a, St. James Square, Newport, PO301UX	Newport	Conditional Approval
4.	TCP/02505/E P/02135/02 land adjacent 25, Princes Esplanade, Cowes, PO31	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
5.	TCP/03889/K P/01700/03 The Boathouse Restaurant, Chine Hill, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin	Conditional Approval
6.	TCP/04901/E P/01078/03 OS Parcel 7790, west side of, Watergate Road, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
7.	TCP/13058/C P/01970/03 18 Pier Street, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368JU	Sandown	Conditional Approval
8.	TCP/13407/T P/01915/03 land adjacent and rear of Broomhill Cottage, Sheepwash Lane, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38	Godshill	Refusal
9.	TCP/13691/G P/01510/03 land between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
10.	TCP/18533/L P/01972/03 Clatterford House, Clatterford Shute, Newport, PO301PD	Newport	Conditional Approval
11.	TCP/18927/A P/01720/03 Pump Lane House, Pump Lane, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355NG	Bembridge	Conditional Approval
12.	TCP/21651/C P/01993/03 Hermitage Court Farm, Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382PJ	Niton	Refusal
13.	TCP/22083/E P/01592/03 site of Wainlode, Kite Hill, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LE	Fishbourne	Conditional Approval
14.	LBC/22117/D P/01615/03 18a, St. James Square, Newport, PO301UX	Newport	Conditional Approval
15.	TCPL/22305/H P/02035/03 Sun Inn, Hulverstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304EH	Brighstone	Conditional Approval
16.	LBC/22305/J P/02036/03 Sun Inn, Hulverstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304EH	Brighstone	Conditional Approval
17.	TCP/22738/C P/01518/03 Lower Hyde Holiday Village, Landguard Road, Shanklin, PO377LL	Shanklin	Conditional Approval
18.	TCP/22975/F P/02085/03 Christian Meeting Room, Buckbury Lane, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
19.	TCP/24814/D P/00685/03 Bowcombe Meadows Business Park, Bowcombe Road, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
20.	TCP/24814/E P/01460/03 Bowcombe Meadows Business Park, Bowcombe Road, Newport, PO30	Newport	Conditional Approval
21.	TCP/24833/B P/01903/03 Linnet Mead, Redhill Lane, Sandford, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383ET	Godshill	Refusal
22.	TCP/25373/A P/01060/03 land rear of 5-15 Pallance Road with access off, Selman Gardens, Cowes, PO31	Northwood	Conditional Approval
23.	TCP/25496/A P/01669/03 Ashey Park, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33	Ryde	Conditional Approval
24.	TCP/25536 P/00701/03 22 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318LD	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
25.	TCP/25671/A P/01562/03 land at and rear of 52 and 54, Wyatts Lane, Cowes, PO31	Northwood	Conditional Approval

TCP/01615/M P/00955/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde South West

Registration Date: 16/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Toogood Plastics

Demolition of warehouse and dwelling; construction of 9 dwellings (revised scheme)(readvertised application)

1 Milligan Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332QW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject to a number of representations from local residents and it is considered Committee determination is appropriate.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application (minor) has taken thirty weeks to process, which has been due principally to matter being deferred twice by Members to allow opportunity for further improvements to scheme.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to former milk depot that was recently used as storage and distribution unit for plastic building components which is situated on eastern side of West Street immediately north east of junction with Milligan Road. The site comprises mainly two storey warehouse building and some residential accommodation covering virtually entire site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A certificate of lawful use was granted in October 1997 for use of former milk processing depot for storage and distribution of plastic building components with ancillary retailing.

Consent granted in May 1998 for conversion of part of building to form dwelling unit.

Further application seeking consent for alterations and change of use of loft/storage area to form flat approved February 2000.

Members will recall that this application has been considered previously on two occasions namely the meeting held on 22 July 2003 when the application was deferred to allow consideration and opportunity to be taken to negotiate improved design, particularly scale and mass of building in respect of three storey element with possible resiting of building to reflect adjoining building lines and taking into account scale of adjoining properties. Members also requested opportunity be taken to explore possibility of on site parking provision and requirement for open space.

Agent was advised of Member's views nevertheless he requested application to be determined as originally submitted and therefore matter was brought before meeting held on 2 September 2003. Again notwithstanding recommendation to approve Members continued to indicate their serious concerns and reservations about proposed development of this site. Consideration of application was again deferred and agents advised accordingly.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application seeks detailed consent for demolition of warehouse, clearance of site and construction of nine dwellings.

Previously deferred scheme showed L shaped building, having double road frontage on to both Milligan Road and West Street. The building itself would be constructed hard to edge of pavement. The development comprised six two-bedroom terraced units with three single bedroom flatted units immediately adjacent the road junction.

The residential units were shown to be two-storey with flatted corner unit comprising additional storey at road junction. Externally building would comprise buff and red brickwork underneath natural slate roof. No off street parking was to be provided.

Following first deferral, agent submitted supporting letter which advised that this application was part of overall business strategy of Toogood Plastics. Development of this site would enable relocation of business to Ryde Business Park at Nicholson Road. Application was in accordance with current policies regarding development of brownfield sites and current car parking requirements in urban areas. A fewer number of dwellings would devalue the application site and would result in Toogood Plastics not being able to redevelop and relocate, therefore missing an opportunity to create additional employment. They requested that originally submitted application be presented to Committee for determination.

Application was again deferred at meeting held on 2 September 2003 and agent advised that Members continued to indicate serious concerns and reservations about proposal. Issues raised and discussed during debate involved scale, mass and design of proposed buildings, density of proposal when compared with existing development in immediate vicinity and absence of any on site parking facilities.

Revised plans were duly submitted and readvertised with previous correspondents duly advised.

Agent states that proposals have been revised to take into account Members considerations in that building has been set back from pavement with railed gravelled forecourt and height of building has also been reduced. With regards car parking the provision of nil on-site parking is in accordance with local planning policy.

Revised plans maintain L shaped building with majority of new footprint of building showing set back to provide small front garden areas enclosed with small brick wall and railings. Other amendments include steps in facade which help break up continuous uninterrupted run of units particularly on West Street frontage. Ridge line has been reduced by approximately half a metre and corner unit remains three storeys but reduction in eaves height has allowed for introduction of semi dormer windows with small pitched roofs over.

Again proposal does not provide off street parking but space is made available rear of site for cycle shed/storage area. External finish will remain as previously proposed, i.e. red and buff brickwork underneath natural slate roofs.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

S1 New development to be concentrated within existing urban areas

G1 Development Envelopes

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development Within Site

H4 Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that as proposal is located within zone 2, no on-site parking is acceptable in policy terms.

Comments of Contaminated Land Officer and Architectural Liaison Officer are awaited.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

In respect of the originally submitted application twelve letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:-

The development provides no off street parking and will therefore increase on street traffic pressure.

Implications for highway safety in locality.

Loss of sunlight and privacy.

Increased traffic movement associated with new development.

Loss of industrial floor space which is capable of being served by local workforce.

Overdevelopment of site.

No play space for children.

Out of keeping (scale) with locality.

Crime and disorder implications.

Following readvertisement 22 letters of objection have been received from local residents with main points of objections summarised as follows:

Over development of site, at excessive density, out of character with locality.

Increase in noise.

Possible crime and disorder implications.

Three storey elements on corner is too high for locality.

No set back with implications for lack of front garden areas.

No car parking provision which will increase pressure in locality on street.

Loss of employment site.

Potential for overlooking and loss of privacy.

Inadequate drainage.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Following two deferrals at Committee stage agent has taken opportunity to submit revised plans in attempt to meet the concerns raised by Members.

As previously reported to Members there is no objection in principle to removal of this non-conforming commercial use which is located within predominantly residential area and which itself has been generator of traffic in immediate locality.

Whilst proposal results in loss of employment sites, albeit B8 usage, development of site will enable relocation of business to Ryde Business Park thereby retaining employment generation.

Agent has gone some way to addressing Members' concerns insofar as setting back building to provide defined front gardens to both road frontages together with slight reduction in massing of building and retention of building projection on West Street frontage at its northernmost end. Three storey element remains on corner of road junction but third floor accommodation has been assimilated into eaves line of corner block with introduction of semi dormer windows. Density of scheme remains unaltered at nine dwellings comprising six houses and three flats and maintains its approach in providing no off-street parking but with additional bicycle park provision.

Given objectives of national planning policy and Council's own local planning policies, it is not considered reasonable to resist proposal purely on grounds of over development of site and similarly provision of nil on-site parking provision is in accordance with adopted development plan policy because site is within sustainable location close to town centre.

On balance Members may consider that agent's revisions are sufficient to overcome most of their previous concerns with regards development of this site and point has been reached where it would not be sustainable for Local Planning Authority to maintain its objections to development of this site.

Revised plans are on balance considered to be acceptable representing appropriate development of this site at not unreasonable density resulting in no adverse impact on street scene or adjoining residential occupiers in particular.

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 the 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations described in this report I am satisfied that proposal in totality represents appropriate type of residential development within this urban area whilst allowing existing operator to relocate to more appropriate location. Provision of one bedroom flats and two bedroom dwelling units provide appropriate range of dwelling types and accords with demands identified in Housing Needs Survey. Therefore consider proposals acceptable and does not conflict with Policies contained within UDP and therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Class A of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The windowopenings fronting both Milligan Road and West Street shall be constructed and designed in such a manner that they do not obstruct, overhang the pavement, or open outwards. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/01680/J P/01221/03 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 25/06/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. D. Cooper Tel: (01983) 823854

Applicant: Mrs S Donaldson

Continued use of premises as a retail unit including section of rear courtyard area (revised plan) (readvertised application)

1 Wheatsheaf Lane, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO410PF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local member, Councillor Mrs Butchers, has declared an interest, as the applicant is a friend and she is therefore unable to deal with this application under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken twenty three weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning application due the submission of revised plans by the applicant and the need for the submission to be readvertised. In addition further time has elapsed through consultation under the delegated procedure and the period of time up to this planning committee meeting.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is located on eastern side of Wheatsheaf Lane approximately mid way between Quay Street and Eremue Court. The proposal is well located adjacent to other A1 and A3 uses. Property is two storey with commercial premises at ground floor with residential accommodation over. Premises are located within a terrace which includes 3 storey accommodation with some accommodation in roof space.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1680F/S/24807 - Change of use from store rooms to retail shop at 1A and 1B Wheatsheaf Lane conditionally approved February 1990.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for the continued use of premises as a retail unit, including a small courtyard area to the rear of the building..

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the development envelope and town centre of Yarmouth. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas), R1 (Existing Town Centres) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer does not consider there to be any highway implications associated with this proposal.

The AONB Planning and Information Officer, Environment Agency and Environmental Health Department raise no objection to the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Yarmouth Town Council does not object to the continued use of the premises as a retail unit and feel the courtyard to be the main problem. However, they considered that this was a matter for discussion between the complainant and the shopkeepers. Comment was also noted by Yarmouth Town Council with regard to the possible issue of heath and safety.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

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

Adverse impact on residential accommodation above/adjacent premises due to noise/disturbance from potential customers.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is located within the development envelope and town centre of Yarmouth and is an area where retail uses would be expected. The proposal is well located adjacent to other A1 and A3 uses.

The premises and rear courtyard to be used for retail purposes in connection with the operation of the business as a gift shop and flower shop will not have significant impact or detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining properties. In particular the rear courtyard is small and its use for retail purposes in connection with the ground floor of the property is unlikely to cause significant disturbance to residents of adjoining properties. Therefore, it is considered that proposal does not conflict with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

In addition, it is not considered that the proposal will have any considerable adverse impacts on the Conservation Area and therefore will be in accordance with Policy B6.

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 on 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 outlined in this report I am of the opinion that property is appropriately located for a retail use and that such usage will not have a significant or adverse effect on adjoining residential accommodation. In

consequence, I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with Policies D1, B6, R1 and G4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

A/02327 P/01604/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North

Registration Date: 20/08/2003 - Advertisement Consent

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Fleming

Retention of 2 non-illuminated menu boards; 1 wall mounted name sign above door (revised description)

18a, St. James Square, Newport, PO301UX

See joint report under LBC/22117/D (Item No. 14)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Standard condition - B01
2	Standard condition - B02
3	Standard condition - B03
4	Standard condition - B04
5	Standard condition - B05
6	The two menu boards located either side of the entrance door on the St. James Square frontage shall be displayed only when the premises are open to the public unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design), B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/02505/E P/02135/02 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 27/11/2002 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Crocker

2 detached 3 storey houses with integral garages; vehicular access (revised plans)

land adjacent 25, Princes Esplanade, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application raises a number of contentious issues with particular reference to design and slope stability and therefore committee consideration is warranted in this case.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 59 weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular sloping site adjacent a modest detached bungalow situated at the Gurnard end of Princes Esplanade with the adjacent property being the last property in a line of mixed residential development. Adjoining to the north east is a substantial extent of woodland (Princes Esplanade Wood) which extends over a substantial frontage of Princes Esplanade terminating at a development known as Hawkins, being a modern apartment block.

Site is adjacent existing property known as Janarene which is one of two modest single storey properties with the other being the property known as Seacroft. This area of Princes Esplanade is characterised by a mixture of dwelling types ranging from chalet to bungalow properties of varying sizes and on a similar building line. Previous referred to woodland extends to the rear of the application site. Site generally slopes from the north west to the south east to Princes Esplanade with the lower half of the site representing the toe of that slope.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In January 2002 a detailed application was submitted for a detached dwelling with integral garage adjacent to Janarene which following inconclusive negotiations regarding a number of issues was withdrawn in November 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks detailed consent to construct two detached split level dwellings of modern design on this site which is generally characterised by overgrown foliage being a mixture of blackthorn to the front over mature willow scrub centrally located extending to the rear with further woodland character in the north eastern corner. Following negotiations the dwelling which stands directly abutting Janarene is slightly smaller than that abutting the north eastern boundary. Details are as follows:-

House One (abutting north eastern boundary) provides following accommodation

Ground Floor - double garage, sun room/bedroom and WC with entrance hall.

First Floor plan - living/dining, kitchen, bathroom, study, bedroom with en-suite bathroom and hall.

Second Floor plan - master bedroom with two further bedrooms, all with en-suite bathrooms, landing and terraced area.

House Two (abutting property Janarene)

Ground Floor - double garage, sun room/bedroom and WC with entrance hall.

First Floor plan - living/dining, kitchen, study, bedroom and bathroom.

Second Floor plan - master bedroom with en-suite single bedroom, external decking with flat roof area to rear.

Dwellings to be located slightly forward of the building line to Janarene with the property adjacent north eastern boundary set slightly further forward. Dwellings to be constructed in a grey facing brick on the ground floor with the first and second floor to be finished in horizontal cedar barding. Dwellings to be provided with a heavy fascia with deep overhang finished in felted flat roof. Dwellings themselves to be heavily glazed.

Access to be via a shared access off Princes Esplanade with the frontage boundary wall being slightly splayed to achieve suitable visibility. The area in front of the dwellings to be paved providing turning and additional parking.

Dwelling has been set 1.5 metres off the south western boundary (abutting Janarene) and a 1.2 metre gap has been provided between the dwellings. In terms of relationship to the adjoining woodland which encroaches slightly into the site, there is a gap of 10 metres to the north eastern boundary.

In terms of height relationship to the adjoining property Janarene, the proposed house type two will be at its highest, i.e. top of flat roof 1.4 metres higher than the top of ridge of the property Janarene. Incidentally the property Janarene is a green tiled hipped roof bungalow property. That 1.4 metre height is at a distance of approximately 6.2 metres off the north west facing elevation of that existing property. The top of the balustrading which serves the second floor deck to the new property is approximately 0.6 metre lower than the ridge height of the adjoining property. At its maximum the height of the two units is 8.6 metres above pavement level.

Application accompanied by specialist information covering ecology and ground stability.

In terms of the geotechnical / slope stability report which clearly recognises the particular problems relating to this site and concludes that "introducing a line of reinforced 'contiguous' piles to provide in simple terms a secure wall could permanently stabilise the land. This would have the double benefit of not only creating a line of support but would allow for unimpeded excavations, all of which without the need for extensive temporary support."

Report recommends the foundations should be in the form of a series of "reinforced concrete ground beams which in turn are supported by deep reinforced cast in situ piles."

"To accommodate the increased level changes as detailed would warrant the use of a contiguous piled wall which would arrest all lateral forces."

"Dwellings themselves to be in the form of engineered timber framed superstructure which can accommodate long term movements."

"Foundation designs indicate 600 mm piles cast in a depth of around 18 metres."

Finally the report recommends that the site should not be subject to any unnecessary excavations in conjunction with any landscaping of the site and suggests that the topography should be left largely unaltered to minimise risk from ground movement occurring.

In terms of ecology application subject of a specialist report which describes site as scrub and secondary woodland with the proposed site comprising mixture of blackthorn, hawthorn and sallow scrub. Some evidence of the remnants of a natural pond created by past soil slumping.

Report suggests that within the 10 metre area which forms the north eastern area of the site should be appropriately managed to enhance wildlife.

In terms of protected mammal species, the site survey concludes that there is evidence of dormice on the south western edge of the site with it being reasonable to assume dormice will be using the scrub on the site at low densities. Report recommends that licence be applied for under the Regulations.

Report suggests that there is no evidence of red squirrels with the habitat not being suitable for these species. Also report finds that there is no evidence of badger setts on the site although some foraging activity was indicated. Report recommends that guidelines by English Nature should be followed.

Application accompanied by a design statement which provides factual information and relates to policy considerations and contains an analysis of the area as follows:

"The surrounding dwellings have no definite period or style influence. They are very individual to their plots. This also expands to the choice of materials which include brick render, boarding to the walls and slate, tile, felt and shingles to the roof. It is also noted that Janarene footprint is considerably smaller than the majority within the immediate area."

Statement goes on to consider the importance of the views out of the site over the Solent which applicants have sought to maximise. Statement suggests that the internal layout and overall modern design approach has been determined by the emphasis on the seaward views. In terms of the adjacent woodland, applicants are conscious of the need to respect the ecology in the area, evidenced by the specialist report which accompanied the application. Applicant state:

"When considering our design, we felt it was important to utilise timber externally where practical. Not only does timber have a relationship with the woodland but also with its coastal setting.

In terms of impact on neighbouring property Janarene, side elevation will only have high level windows with the proposed property being tiered down to give the house less vertical dominance over Janarene with a further height progression towards the north east."

In conclusion applicants state the following:

"We feel our design embodies the important aspects of the site and our clients requirements. We feel its architecture is contemporary yet sympathetic to its location and surroundings. We feel the proposal is a fitting conclusion to the development envelope when approaching from either direction along the Esplanade or viewed from the Solent."

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National Policies as follows:

PPG 9 - Nature Conservation which provides comprehensive advice on the relationship between planning control and nature conservation.

PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land, Landslides and Planning Annexe 1 March 1996 relevant points as follows:

In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting developments where appropriate.

Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landsliding including the criteria and information requirements which should be used in determining planning application.

Where appropriate planning application should be accompanied by slope stability report which demonstrates that the site is stable or can be made so and will not be affected by or trigger landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

PPG14 also advises that Planning Authority should carry out their best endeavours to be provided with information ensuring safe development which will not impact on neighbouring land but emphasises that the ultimate responsibility for safe development rests with the developer.

Site within the development envelope boundary as defined for Cowes in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

North eastern boundary and rear south eastern boundary directly abuts site of importance for nature conservation (SINC) being C234 (Princes Esplanade Wood). Woodland area itself is subject of a Woodland Order under the Tree Preservation Order Regulations.

Members will be aware of the publication of the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study commissioned by the Council. The study area extends from Market Hill to Cowes through to Gurnard Marsh and inland as far as Baring Road and Solent View Road. The main objectives of the study were to review the stability of the coastal slopes and provide guidance for future planned development. In terms of current application the site is within an area defined as normally requiring submission of a full stability report prepared by a competent person with the document advising a geotechnical engineer.

Relevant Local Plan Policies

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G7 - Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards of Development within the Site.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

D3 - Landscaping.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer suggests conditions covering visibility and sight lines and construction of the access should application be approved.

There is a major TRANSCO gas service pipe within Princes Esplanade. They have been consulted and confirm that the site is within the vicinity of an above ground gas pressure reducing station. The agency advises all necessary precautions where construction work, with particular reference to excavation, takes place within ten metres of that station.

The Council's Ecology Officer confirms site's location in respect of SINC C234 with particular reference to the leaving of a 10 metre transitional area from the SINC boundary. He advises suitable conditions be applied covering landscaping of this area. He also makes reference to the likelihood of dormice occupation and the need to require an appropriate DEFRA licence in addition to any planning consent. Finally he makes reference to badgers being in the area and therefore applicant may wish to employ a badger consultant to ensure no setts are in existence on the site.

Environment Agency recommends condition foul drainage should be to mains foul drainage only. Applicant has also been advised by the Environment Agency that although the site is adjacent a tidal flood plain area, there may be problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flood event. Site operator should ensure adequate flood evacuation plan is implemented for such eventualities. Otherwise, Agency has no objection in principle to the proposal.

English Nature has been consulted and although have no objection in respect of the site's location adjacent the Solent Maritime cSAC expressing the opinion that the proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on the cSAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. English Nature, however, expresses concern regarding the level and methodology of information in respect of wildlife habitat with particular reference to dormice, badgers and the existence of a pond and therefore the potential for great crested newt occupation. Following this comment further update information was received from the applicant which was forwarded to English Nature with that agency continuing to express concern regarding the quality of the information and posing a number of questions of the applicant prior to the planning application being determined. A number of these questions have been addressed.

The submitted geotechnical and slope stability report has been carefully vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer who initially expressed dissatisfaction at the details submitted and his summary is quoted as follows:

"The site is situated towards the toe of a large and deep seated (at least 7 to 9 metres deep at the bore hole position) landslide complex. This landslide complex is known to have been active in the recent past. The exact mechanism of the landslide complex has not been ascertained. It is therefore difficult to come to a firm conclusion with regard to their proposals which are in any case unclear. My own view is that as the proposed development is situated at the toe of the slope any additional load caused by its weight would be beneficial, however the architectural drawings indicate excavations into the hillside to form a split level building. Such an excavation may well have a destabilising effect.

Therefore it has not been demonstrated that the development would not cause instability to the surrounding area. Also there is, in my opinion, a real risk of the site being affected by movement of the landslide leading to heave over the site of the proposed development and/or the risk of the site being inundated by a mud slide formed above the development. Such possibilities should be thoroughly investigated and appropriate stabilisation measures taken prior to any permission being granted on this site."

Applicant's engineer has been requested to address the issues raised and following extensive level of negotiations and discussions between the relative engineers, the Planning Authority is now in receipt of a letter from their consulting geotechnical engineer which confirms the following:

"Having perused Robert Cowan's letter of 17 October and subsequent calculations I am not satisfied that the proposed development fulfills the requirements of PPG14."

Initial application placed before the Architects' Panel whose comments are summarised as follows:

Quality and materials would have significant influence on success of the design.

Space between buildings poor feature of the design with that gap either being increased or some linkage feature introduced to read as a single block.

Particular reference made to the apparent close proximity to the existing bungalow.

Detailing of the two blocks was acceptable although choice of materials with particular reference to colour would be very important.

Panel of opinion that type and style of building acceptable in the concept of a symmetrical pair.

Following these panel comments negotiations have taken place with the result of revised plans being submitted which have been further considered by the panel who expressed disappointment at the level of change which has taken place in respect of their previous comments.

Members are also advised that Robin McInnes, Coastal Manager, was consulted but chose not to comment specifically on the submitted information making reference to the comments which he made in respect of the previous application for one dwelling which was withdrawn. That particular comment raised a number of issues which significantly raised the matter of excavation being near the toe of the landslide. The Coastal Manager commented that the applicant would be expected to provide information on how the dwelling can be constructed without adversely affecting the slope behind or adjacent properties.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council comment as follows:

That the Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that there are land stability concerns on the site, that the proposals amount to over development and that there is encroachment on the SINC area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Adjoining property owner has a number of concerns, the main one of which is ground stability. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Concern that proposals may create potential danger to his own property.

Having obtained his own specialist comments in respect of the former report submitted with the previous withdrawn application he poses the question of whether or not the concerns raised by his own consultant have been addressed and that the submitted report will be duly checked by an independent geotechnical specialist.

He is particularly concerned that the current proposal indicates a dwelling even closer to his property than the previous withdrawn application.

He expresses concern regarding the fact that excavations are likely to go below the level of his own raft foundations and that his property has been subject to subsidence.

He is concerned that any disturbance may trigger further subsidence causing irreparable damage to his property.

Other comments relate to likely impact on his general outlook with particular reference to attractive woodland and assorted wildlife and the effect that the three storey high brick wall may have on that outlook.

Isle of Wight Society object on the grounds that the proposed dwelling will have an adverse visual impact on the rural area. They stress that the general street scene is mainly single storey buildings although the area does have some two/three storey buildings which blend in with the chalet bungalows. The proposed buildings for this site will not blend in with that street scene.

One letter of support received from owner of property which abuts the property Janarene stating that "development would enhance this very important site of Gurnard waterfront. Such innovative designs would be quite nice to see in this area. They also comment that there is a good mixture of properties with varied designs and stressing that the modern design would add interest to the Esplanade.

Email received from resident of Egypt Esplanade objecting as follows.

Proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the ancient woodland which provides a green buffer between Gurnard and Cowes.

Proposal is visually intrusive and would spoil the quality of the area making reference to existing properties being of a conventional design. Objectors consider that the two higher rise contemporary houses would not be pleasing to the eye either from the direction of the land or the sea.

Concern that other applications may follow and the Esplanade will become irrevocably spoiled by urban sprawl. Concern that the proposal will impinge on the character of the SINC.

EVALUATION

This application although seeking consent for only two units has raised a number of complex issues with particular regard to ground and slope stability and design matters. This coupled with the ecological issues has resulted in considerable delays in bringing these matters to fruition to enable the application to be considered by Members. I will deal with the matters individually as follows.

Design/Scale

Members will note applicants have chosen a contemporary modern approach which the Architect's Panel did not consider to be inappropriate with their main concerns relating to detail. It is important to appreciate that this is the end of a line of properties with it being extremely unlikely that any further development will be permitted beyond this point. Therefore it could be argued that development on this land represents a visual stop to this line of mixed development with many of the units being low profile in appearance. Also most of the units are modern in appearance apart from the two longstanding bungalows which directly abut the site. Members are reminded that the advice contained in PPG 1 Annex A which advises that "policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale density mass and height in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally".

Members attention is also drawn to the modern units being constructed opposite Gurnard Green further to the west with particular reference to the Art Nouveau dwelling which Members may recall was allowed on appeal. I consider that the design approach is appropriate in this case given the site's location and will make an important statement on this edge of Gurnard.

In terms of scale the reduction in height and scale of that element which abuts property 'Janarene' has assisted in creating a stepping down of the street scene. This will not only help the street scene effect but will also reduce any impact on that adjoining property.

Also the two units have been staggered in terms of their building line in order to reduce the general impact of scale and prevent the units reading as one single mass. Finally the scale and general mass has to some extent been dictated by the topography of the site with these dwellings making best use of sloping land. It is also important to note that the general impact of the dwellings particularly when viewed from the north east when approaching from Cowes will be reduced by the woodland and the level of planting which will take place within the 10 metre buffer strip. This level of landscaping will provide an effective foreground both to the side and front of the buildings.

Ground Stability

Members will appreciate from the length of time which it has taken to resolve this matter just how complex this issue has proved to be. The site's location identifies it as a fairly critical area in terms of ground and slope stability. In this regard it is the site's location at the tow of the slope which results in it being important that the structure and particularly the foundations are constructed to a standard which takes that location into account and provides the support for the overall slope. The technical nature of these issues have proved difficult to resolve with the Council's Consulting Engineer not being entirely satisfied with the solutions being offered and therefore requiring further information and investigation. The protractive nature of the negotiations between the engineers is indicative of the care which has been taken to ensure an appropriate scheme and therefore I am confident that the acceptance of the scheme ensures that the Council has carried out its best endeavours on this matter. Again I remind Members that ultimately it is the developers responsibility and not the Council's responsibility to ensure safe development and therefore the advice contained in PPG 14 has been satisfied in this case.

Ecology Issues

Again this issue with particular regard to dormouse occupation of a small part of the site has been the subject of an exchange of correspondence and I am satisfied that this issue has reached the stage where the application can be determined by Members. At the time of preparing this report the depth of information still appears to be in doubt as far as English Nature are concerned and therefore I would recommend that any approval of the application should Members be mindful to go down that line be subject to no adverse comments from English Nature which would warrant reconsideration of the application. I would also suggest that a letter accompany any approval advising applicants of the need to obtain a DEFRA licence in terms of the dormouse occupation.

Landscaping

The site's location adjacent a particularly sensitive area i.e. woodland area classified as a SINC has been recognised by the applicants by ensuring a 10 metre wide buffer strip on which I would suggest a specific condition requiring the planting of native species which relate to the species which make up the woodland area. Specialist advice may need to be obtained in respect of quantity and species to be planted and indeed careful consideration would need to take place regarding any existing species in this area of the site which may need protection during the course of construction. Providing the landscaping is appropriately carried out I consider that this area will contribute to the general landscape of Princes Esplanade and in the long term provide valuable wildlife habitat.

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 the 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 other 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that all material considerations have been addressed and that the applicants have taken due account of the prominence and therefore importance of this site on the edge of Gurnard and its proximity to an ecologically sensitive area. The modern design approach although considered radical is considered to be acceptable in principal (see Architect's Panel comments) and therefore now the ground stability issues have been resolved I am of the opinion that this proposal is acceptable and therefore recommend accordingly. Important to establish that this proposal will not set a precedent and increase pressures on further development in this area. The status of the woodland as a SINC and also a preserved woodland area provides more than enough protection from development regardless of the fact that the woodland area is within the development envelope boundary. This site is the last remaining area of land along Princes Esplanade which is neither within the SINC or the woodland and therefore in principal its development is acceptable.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS) SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS BEING RECEIVED FROM ENGLISH NATURE WHICH WOULD WARRANT RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for new development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for (light/heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. (b) Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm 2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material 3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for new development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
5	Submission of samples - S03
6	Before development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the 10 metre buffer strip within the site adjacent to the north eastern boundary. Such scheme shall reflect the native species found in the adjacent woodland area (Princes Esplanade Wood). Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees and shrubs to be planted and such approved planting shall be completed prior to occupation of either of the dwellings hereby approved. All such planting shall be maintained to encourage its establishment of a minimum of five years following contractual practical completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs which are removed, die or become in the opinion of the Local planning Authority seriously damaged or defected within this period shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season. Reason: In the interest of contributing to the major conservation interests and the amenity of the area and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) and C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Before the development commences a hard landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the surface treatment of the parking and turning area along with the position, design and materials of the boundary walls as indicated on the plans hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	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 (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed within the south west facing elevation of house no.2. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to the commencement of work detailed plans shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority of a 1.8 metre high privacy screen to the second floor decking at house no.2 as indicated on the plans hereby approved. Such screen shall be erected in accordance with those approved details prior to occupation of that dwelling. Any such screen shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants advising all foundation work should be supervised by an appropriate competent engineer preferably the engineer who has prepared the reports and that such work should be carried out in accordance with the agreed foundation details.

Applicants be advised that they need to obtain a DEFRA licence under Habitat Regulations 1994 in respect of dormouse habitat disturbance with that licence being obtained prior to any commencement of work on site.

Applicants be provided with a copy of a letter dated 2 December 2002 from Messrs TRANSCO and be strongly advised to note the excavation restrictions referred to in that letter.

TCP/03889/K P/01700/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South

Registration Date: 03/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Andrews

Conversion of restaurant into 2 dwellings to include ground & 1st floor extensions & creation of new roof & 2nd floor to include balcony on end elevation (readvertised application - corrected location)

The Boathouse Restaurant, Chine Hill, Shanklin, PO37

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Rees, at time of submission due to the contentious nature of the proposal.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application has taken 19 weeks. The delay was waiting for Structural Engineer's comments and workload of Case Officer.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This site is of approximately 0.02 hectares and is located at the extreme end of Shanklin Esplanade on the rising land at Chine Hill, which marks the southern end of the physical development on the Esplanade. Chine Hill rises to the south, turns to the west whilst still rising and, in pedestrian form, provides access to the Chine Public House, and turning further northward links with Chine Avenue and Everton Lane. The area of the site is marked by the bottom of the cliff and further terraced houses etc abut the site further to the north, including four and five storey block of flats known as Waverley Court. The site is currently occupied by one, two and three storey buildings currently used as cafe/restaurant with residential accommodation covering the majority of the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Change of use of ground floor from retail to cafe approved in January 1995 and in April 1994 change of use from Class A1 retail to Class A3 cafe was also approved, the two applications relating to opposite ends of the building. In April 2003 an application for the demolition of buildings and the redevelopment of the site with four houses was refused on the grounds of inadequate information relating to cliff stability.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for the conversion of the buildings and their extension to form two dwellings. Development to include a new roof and accommodation and a balcony at the southern end of the existing building. Detailed plans show a split between the new, two dwellings to be approximately eight metres from its northern boundary and the northerly units to comprise lounge/dining room, kitchen and utility room on ground floor; bathroom and bedroom on first floor with a further bedroom en-suite at second floor level. The southerly unit to provide a dining/kitchen/family room and utility room on ground floor, two bedrooms, lounge and bathroom on first floor with a further bedroom en-suite and roof terrace at second floor level.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG21 supports tourism to assist in the economic sustainability of the area (such as the Island) and the Unitary Development Plan has been prepared taking into account the advice given.

The site is within the development envelope; outside but abutting Shanklin Conservation Area; outside tourism policy area T4. Policy T2, whilst encouraging tourist facilities does not preclude changes of use to uses unrelated to tourism unless they are unacceptable in the local environment or not easily accessible from existing centres of population.

PPG14 refers to development on unstable land and Policy G7 follows on from the PPG guidance stating that:-

Development of areas of known or possible land instability will only be permitted where the Council are satisfied that the site can be developed and used safely and not add to the instability of the site or adjoining land and that stabilisation measures are environmentally acceptable. Planning applications for development should be accompanied by a suitably qualified engineer's report detailing how the development is to be carried out and what mitigating measures are to be used.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comments subject to sound insulation under Building Regulations being provided.

Coastal Manager raises no objection to the development provided adequate protection is incorporated into the scheme to ensure that the passageway and lowest floor are protected (structurally) from cliff falls. In addition, he feels that a condition should be included requiring the regular and prompt removal of any accumulative fallen debris to prevent passive loading present prior to a further cliff fall and to avoid further falls reaching the first floor windows.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council object on grounds of loss of tourist amenity and again stating that any development of this area should be subject to a full geotechnical survey.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from owner of the Shanklin Chine raising concern over history of instability of the area; that an increased storey would be out of proportion with surrounding development and requesting that, in the event that planning permission is granted, development is carried out only between November and March.

CRIME & DISORDER

The relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that the proposed development has any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

The redevelopment of this site was refused in April 2003 for the following reason:

The application site is in an area which is of uncertain cliff stability but is in an area known to be prone to incremental spalling and slab failure erosion and no information has been provided to demonstrate that the site can be developed as proposed without destabilising the cliff or that measures can be taken to mitigate against the effects of subsequent cliff erosion in an environmentally acceptable manner. In consequence the proposal would be contrary to Policy G7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

As an alternative to the redevelopment scheme, this application seeks consent to change the use and convert the buildings on site into two dwellings. The works include the rebuilding of part of the ground floor which actually reduces the footprint slightly at the rear but continues to second floor level and includes a new roof construction containing additional accommodation. The footprint of the building is not increased but the distance from the foot of the cliff is actually increased.

Whereas previously, when refused, the development comprised a redevelopment of the site, the current application seeks to increase the height of the building by between 1.8 and 2.6 metres retaining the common features of gables and the proportion of buildings on this rising land.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, design and matters relating to the stability of the land.

The site is outside the designated tourism area for Shanklin and outside of the hotel area where "facilities" would be required to be retained and therefore there is no principle objection to the site's total use for residential purposes. In addition, the previous application was refused on grounds only of the stability issue as it was found that there was no policy objection to that development.

In design terms the scale and mass of the resultant building will be similar and compatible with the adjoining and existing development and it is felt that the height of the resultant building will not be significantly greater, indeed it is arguable that the building "finishes off" the existing frontage development to the Esplanade in a better way than that which exists.

Turning to the cliff stability issue, essentially what is proposed now is a conversion rather than a total rebuild, although there are additions proposed to the building. Effectively, as the building is to remain and the conversion seeks to form two living units as opposed to a living unit and a restaurant, the building will be frequented by a lesser number of people and therefore the intensity of the use of the site is reduced. In cliff stability terms the footprint of the building remains roughly the same although it is being taken further away from the toe of the cliff. The Coastal Manager takes the view that provided adequate steps are taken to safeguard the occupants from cliff falls by ensuring the canopy of the building is designed to be of sufficient strength, no objection to the proposals are lodged. I concur with this view and take note of the Coastal Manager's recommendation that the regular clearance of any accumulated fallen debris is removed to prevent passive loading accumulating and help prevent any future falls reaching first floor windows.

In summary the proposed development is a conversion which is significantly different from the complete rebuild as previously proposed, and result in a use of the site which is comparable if not lesser than that existing. I consider the development to be acceptable and recommend accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given appropriate weight and consideration to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the reuse of this building by conversion into two residential units as opposed to a residential unit and restaurant is considered to be a reduction in intensity and a development which does not have any significant implications of cliff stability. The development results in one which is compatible with residential development policies of the Unitary Development Plan and is not contrary to Policy G6 regarding cliff stability.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Alteration of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The access and crossing of the highway or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of one parking space as shown on the plan hereby approved has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter that space shall be kept available for car parking in relating to the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No development shall take place on site until a scheme setting out the structural detail of the roof of the building has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the conversion of the building shall be carried out strictly in accordance with those details. Reason: The site is in an area prone to incremental cliff spalling and slab failure erosion where measures to ameliorate the effects need to be taken in accordance with Policy G7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The site is in an area prone to incremental cliff spalling and slab failure erosion where measures to ameliorate the effects need to be taken in accordance with Policy G7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, and in the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/04901/E P/01078/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Mount Joy

Registration Date: 28/05/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Whiller

Block of 4 stables & hay store, (revised siting), (readvertised application)

OS Parcel 7790, west side of, Watergate Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report has been requested by the local Member, Councillor Smart, when consulted under the delegated procedure as she is concerned about the visual intrusion of this building when viewed from the surrounding area.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twenty nine weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications because of ongoing negotiations and subsequent consultations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is situated on the southern outskirts of Newport and comprises of a five acre field bounded to the east and partly to the north by Watergate Road and Chatfield Lodge properties respectively. Immediately to the south is a disused pit with fields lying to the east and partly to the north. The site is quite elevated and exposed with land falling away to the south and south west.

The site is accessed over a narrow unmade track running alongside the southern boundary of 80 Watergate Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Permission refused in 1975, 1976 and 1990 for residential development on grounds of policy, principle and inadequate access.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for four stables and a hay store. Revised plans show both buildings to be situated adjacent the southern boundary shared with the disused pit, rather than adjacent to the common boundary with no. 80 Watergate Road as originally proposed. The proposed development is now some 65 metres from the nearest residential boundary.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is situated outside of but adjacent to the development envelope boundary for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policies of the plan considered to be of particular relevance to current proposal are as follows:

S4 - The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

C22 - Keeping of Horses for Recreational Purposes

C23 - Stables and Field Shelters in the Countryside

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has withdrawn earlier recommendation for refusal and confirms no objection subject to the stables being used for private purposes only. He also states that visibility has been improved in the lead traffic direction by the cutting back of natural growth.

Environment Agency raise no objection but offer advice to applicant in respect of effluent disposal. Their comments have been copied directly to the applicant.

Environmental Health Officer requests conditions stating that no waste, straw, foodstuff or other material shall be stored outside of the proposed building, neither shall manure be burned but shall be disposed of in a manner to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Islandwatch object on grounds that the proposal would contribute to the intensification of "horsiculture" and could generate the need for additional development, as has happened elsewhere in Watergate Road.

Nine local residents objected to the original proposal, four of which have commented further in respect of the revised scheme. Points of objection can be summarised as follows:

· This is a narrow section of Watergate Road that is unsuitable for the increase in traffic associated with this development.

· Access to and from the proposed development would increase the risk of accidents.

· The long narrow track serving the site is most unsuitable for emergency vehicles.

· Proximity to adjoining residential properties.

· Smell, flies, effluent and noise.

· Revised siting would be on the skyline when viewed from Watergate Road properties.

· Potential future need for a dwelling.

· Potential commercial activity.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The main considerations in this instance relate to the impact of this development on adjoining property occupiers, the surrounding area in general and whether associated vehicular activity would add unduly to the hazards of other highway users.

It was originally proposed to locate the stable building adjacent to the boundary with no. 80 Watergate Road. Although the Environmental Health Officer did not object to this relationship subject to appropriate conditions, the siting was considered far from ideal and alternative positions were therefore investigated. The applicant therefore submitted revised plans showing the stable building to be situated adjacent the well hedged southern boundary shared with the disused pit, approximately 65 metres west of the nearest residential boundary. This is considered to be an acceptable spatial relationship whereby the proposed stable building would not, in my opinion, have a significant impact upon the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbours. However, I would recommend conditions in respect of outside storage and disposal of manure, should Members be minded to grant planning permission.

The disadvantage of the revised position is its elevated position relative to surrounding land and properties. However, this position was deliberately chosen because the proposed stable building would be seen against a backdrop of substantial natural growth along the southern boundary. I therefore consider that the outlook of nearby properties would not be significantly compromised. The backdrop effect from Watergate Road properties would also act as a sufficient or total screen from a southerly and south-easterly direction meaning that the proposed stable block would not, in my opinion, detract significantly from the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Whilst recognising that there may well be some views of the proposal from Mount Joy, I consider that the distance of these views coupled with the natural growth referred to above would render any visual intrusion of little harm.

In access terms, there is a longstanding vehicular access and unmade track from Watergate Road alongside the southern boundary of no.80. There is no pavement along this section of Watergate Road and visibility is generally restricted by boundary hedges. Although the applicant has no control over land to the north, he has been able to improve visibility in the lead traffic direction to the south. The Highway Engineer has reviewed the situation and subsequently withdrawn his earlier objection. In terms of traffic generation, the applicant's horses have been lawfully grazing this land for many months and regularly transported to and from a local livery. It is considered that vehicular movements would be reduced should the applicant have stabling facilities on site as this would obviate the need for regular trips with a horsebox. The applicant has also confirmed that the stables are intended for private purposes only and as such would not generate the amount of traffic associated with a commercial riding establishment. Taking the above points into consideration, I am of the view that a reason for refusal based on highway grounds could not be substantiated.

Local residents are concerned that stables would be shortly followed by an application for a residential dwelling. The site is situated outside of the development envelope where there is a general presumption against granting consent for residential dwellings. Any future proposal would be judged on its individual merits and I therefore see no reason why this particular objection should carry any further weight in the determination of this application.

There is a general concern that approval of this application would proliferate activity associated with "horsiculture". The site adjoins a defined settlement, it would not impact upon an area designated for landscape conservation, the siting, scale and design is considered appropriate as is the relationship with the nearby properties. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal does not conflict with Policies C22 and C23 of the UDP.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, having regard to the acceptable spatial relationship of the proposal with nearby residential properties together with the acceptable screening qualities of boundary hedgerows and the acceptable access arrangements, there is no sustainable planning objection to the proposed stable development.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The walls of the proposed stable block shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a brown colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Stables - private use only - F30
4	Stables - no caravans, etc - F31
5	Stables - no outside storage - F32
6	Stables - no burning of manure - F33
7	Stables - no jumps, etc - F35

TCP/13058/C P/01970/03 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown South

Registration Date: 20/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr E W Davies

Demolition of building; erection of 7 storey block of 11 flats; vehicular access

18 Pier Street, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368JU

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

If determined at this meeting this application will have been determined in nine weeks which is within the BVPI target of thirteen weeks for major applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

An almost square shaped site of 0.04 hectares formerly a hotel, bar and residential accommodation located on the Esplanade at Sandown at the bottom of Pier Street, just to the south of Sandown Pier. The site was formerly known as Trubshaws and comprises a partially derelict building adjoining the north side of "Zanies".

The existing building covers virtually 100% of the site and is flanked by buildings of two, three and four storeys and abuts a cliff face on its north western side. Both of the adjoining buildings are flat roofed but beyond, towards the southwest is Napoleons Landing which varies between four and ten storeys, increasing to the south.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Full planning permission was granted for the demolition of the building and erection of a five storey block of eight flats including vehicular access and covered parking in December 2002.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

A revised scheme for redevelopment of this site has been submitted, seeking permission for eleven flats in a seven storey block.

The plans show the building, in plan form, to comprise car parking on ground floor in the form of four spaces directly accessed off Pier Street leading to a further five car parking spaces served by turntable. In addition the ground floor incorporates pedestrian access in the south end of the frontage leading to a stairwell and lift area.

Plans show building to comprise two flats per floor with the exception of the sixth floor which contains a single flat. Each flat contains living room, kitchen, bathroom and either two or three bedrooms, some of the lower floors have bedrooms which are lit by a light well from roof ground floor providing light and ventilation to some rooms which would otherwise be internal. Top floor contains balcony on three sides.

Elevations show building to be constructed in buff brick work with some cream rendering with stone window heads and band courses. Roof to be essentially curved in similar form to Napoleons Landing, clad in a standing seam profiled sheeting yet to be agreed.

A street scene of the Esplanade shows the proposed building in relation to the Bayshore Hotel immediately adjoining to the north, the disused nightclub (Zanies) and the development known as Napoleons Landing.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

This site is located within the development envelope; outside but adjoining the hotel policy area.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

The Architects' Panel considered the proposals and commented that:-

It was noted that the building has an additional two storeys compared with that previously approved and although noting that the top storey was set back, Members of the Panel felt that a reduction in height by one storey may be more appropriate. Members of the Panel felt that the vertical emphasis in the current design was better than that over the previously approved plans and pointed out that the side elevations would be prominent but generally indicated that the scheme was probably acceptable.

Sandown Town Council raised no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of objection from local residents on grounds of excessive height.

Further letter of objection from adjoining property owner objecting to the height of the building and on grounds that the building would overlook his/her property situated to the rear.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

The property formerly known as Trubshaws has been used most recently as a pub and restaurant but in the last few years has remained unused although some refurbishment work has been carried out. The site is outside of the hotel policy area as demonstrated in the last permission being granted in December 2002.

A five storey block of eight flats was approved at that time and therefore the residential redevelopment of this site is, in principle, acceptable.

Access and parking arrangements in the current scheme are similar to those of the previous scheme in as much as access is proposed directly off the Pier Street frontage. In this instance additional parking is proposed by way of a turntable within the building; four car parking spaces are accessible directly off Pier Street much as before. The Highway Engineer recommends conditions to the current scheme.

The determining factor therefore is considered to be design, visual impact and, more specifically, the height of the building and the effect of this development in context with neighbouring properties.

The height of the building has been increased by two floors over that which was approved previously; it includes an additional three flats and therefore the density has been increased but is one which is compatible with Napoleons Landing. Napoleons Landing reaches ten floors at its highest point, stepping down towards Zanies, a redevelopment of which has been approved at a height compatible with the northern block in Napoleons Landing.

The current proposal would increase the height to seven storeys and in my view almost balances the Napoleons Landing development. It is understood that the redevelopment of Zanies was limited in overall height due to the existence of a covenant, a restriction which apparently does not apply to this site. Bearing in mind the land at the rear of this site and Napoleons Landing is considerably higher being the end of the cliff line which diminishes to a point commensurate with the pier, I do not think that this block, as shown, would be out of place.

I concur with the Architects Panel that the current scheme is attractive and would add that its style reflects that of Napoleons Landing more closely than the scheme approved before. In summary I consider the new proposal to be acceptable despite the increase in height by two floors.

Finally, part of the submission on the previous application included a geological report of the replacement of the building with another in relation to the cliff stability. The report concluded with several recommendations regarding construction and soil retention but no suggestion of cliff instability which might warrant withholding planning permission. However, the planning permission granted in December 2002 for the five storey block did not include any conditions requiring the submission of a geotechnical or structural stability report but an informative letter was sent out with the decision notice drawing attention to the question of ground stability and the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 (Development on Unstable Land).

One of the applicant's reasons for justifying the additional storeys of development and additional flats is the ability of the scheme to afford a new retaining wall to stabilise the cliff at the rear and prevent a further possibility of damage. Members may be aware that similar provision needed to be made at the rear of Napoleons Landing in order to ensure cliff stabilisation in connection with that development. Under the circumstances it is felt that similar steps should be taken in this instance and an informative letter sent to the applicant to ensure that matters relating to cliff stability and the provision of the retaining structure are carried out before any development commences on site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in the Evaluation section above, the redevelopment of the site as proposed is considered to be consistent with policies D1 and D2, H1, H5 and H6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The access and crossing of the highway or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The access shall not be brought into use until facilities are provided within the curtilage of the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with the approved plans. This facility shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The vehicle turntable hereby approved shall be kept in operational order at all times in line with the manufacturers guidelines. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for the secure and covered parking of a minimum of eleven bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of ‘Sheffield’ hoops, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no. 1-01-10 attached for cars to be parked. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Garage doors - K24
9	No garage doors or shutters shall be installed in front of spaces 1 - 4 without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any such shutters or doors to be erected shall be of the roller shutter type to ensure that no projection over the public highway results. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Glass blocks/glazing to be installed in the rear (northwest) elevation of the building shall be of obscured glass. Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/13407/T P/01915/03 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 01/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: IOW Gun Club

Variation of conditions 3 and 4 on TCP/13407R which restrict the hours and days of operation

land adjacent and rear of Broomhill Cottage, Sheepwash Lane, Godshill, Ventnor, PO38

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious due to the history of the site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the meeting on 16 December, will have taken ten weeks to process, the delay due to seeking additional information from the applicant.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site has an approximate area of 4 hectares and is located on the east side of Sheepwash Lane just over 1 kilometre south of Godshill church. It comprises a comparatively steep sided valley which runs approximately north west to south east, accessible via a narrow but recently partially surfaced track from Sheepwash Lane leading to an area where the track has been widened to form a car parking area. Beyond a Cupressus screening hedge, just to the east of the car parking area, the plateau area contains a new clubhouse and additional storage structures in the form of containers and a caravan. In addition, in this area there are crescent shaped concrete strips, each having five firing positions and, directly in front of them, in a south westerly direction, there are two concrete block structures used as trap houses.

The remaining part of the site contains a skeet layout with two corrugated sheet steel structures located at the closest, approximately 30 metres from the copse land at the south eastern extent of the site. A further area, used for firing at sporting targets, is situated further to the south.

The area is predominantly rural with much of the area naturally grass containing some trees and shrubs. The area containing a marshy middle section where water collects in a stream running off in a westerly direction towards Sheepwash Lane. Surrounding the site on all sides is relatively open landscape with an undulating form but there are several residential properties in the area, the closest being Broomhill Cottage, located almost adjoining the access to the site fronting Sheepwash Lane. Other dwellings located further to the south on the other side of the hill.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various planning applications relating to this and the adjoining site to the north relating to pistol target shooting and various temporary consents given between 1974 and March 2001. More recently an application was made for the retention of a replacement clubhouse and continued use of the land for clay pigeon shooting which gained consent in April 2003 subject to, amongst others, two conditions namely:

"3. The use hereby permitted, namely the shooting events, shall be limited to a total of 28, non consecutive days per annum. Of these 28 shooting events no more than 14 are to take place on Sundays and these events shall not occur on consecutive Sundays.

4. The duration of any shooting event (from the first shot until the final shot) shall be restricted to 4 hours, and shall not take place outside the hours of 10:00 to 17:00."

The reason for these two conditions are as follows:

"To prevent annoyance and disturbance from noise emissions of the shooting events."

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Variation of conditions 3 and 4 on the previous permission are sought. In support of the application the Agent includes the following:-

Condition 3 - Limitation of events taking place on Sundays

The Club has always been mindful of the noise created by clay shooting which, by its very nature, is difficult to ameliorate.

The Club are also aware that a parcel of land immediately adjoining the shooting ground is used by a separate organisation - the Newport and District Rifle Club (NDRC) - for full bore competition pistol shooting. The NDRC have an unrestricted use on the number of days on which they can shoot and therefore if they so wished could shoot 365 days per annum. Reasonableness has prevailed in the past with both Clubs realising that shooting on different days would excessively aggravate adjoining owners, walkers and passers-by and this has resulted in an agreement between the two only to shoot on Sundays.

Therefore to limit the Isle of Wight Gun Club to 14 Sundays would create the situation that the IWGC would shoot on the Saturday and the NDRC (who still wish to continue with Sunday shooting) would shoot the following day. The result of this would be that the noise problem would be doubled rather than halved.

A number of Club members work on Saturday and to limit the Sunday shoots would have the result that some Club members could not participate in their chosen sport from one month to the next. The IWGC has a number of England standard shots and to limit their ability to practise would be, in the Club's view, unreasonable.

The Club therefore ask the Planning Authority to allow them to retain Sundays as shoot days.

Condition 4 - Limitation on number of hours on shoot days

As mentioned in supporting information submitted with the application related to TCP/13407R (depending on the type of shoot and weather) there are between 25 to 40 shooters attending the Club for advertised shoots. This number tends to be nearer 40 than 25, particularly during the period April to October. Numbers can significantly increase during Club Championship days to approximately 70 plus persons.

For particular events such as down the line and skeet shooting, each layout can only accommodate a squad of five or six persons. This immediately limits throughput in terms of number of shooters being able to complete the layout per hour. Most competition shoots are 100 bird types. Depending on the conditions and experience of the shooters, it can take up to 30 minutes or so for a squad to complete one set of 25 birds (clay targets sent from trap). Therefore it can be readily seen that to limit the shoot to 4 hours would not allow enough time for shooters to complete the competition, even if they stood at the layout all the time without a break.

Under normal circumstances shooters take a break either after 25 birds or sometimes on the DTL layout after 50 birds in order to rest and preserve their concentration. The Club considers that it would not be possible to run a CPSA registered competition shoot within the 4 hour period.

As mentioned briefly when considering condition 3, the IWGC have a number of members who regularly attend England selection shoots. The standard, therefore, is very high at the Club and to achieve this, regular practise is needed, as is the introduction of juniors to good shooting practice. During normal shoot days, the shooting ground is not available for practise until after the nominated shoot has finished. Junior members are therefore taken out after shoots have finished and given an hour or so tuition. Obviously this practice is limited in the winter months, but the summer period provides an ideal time for this.

The Club are grateful to the Local Planning Authority for allowing the principle of the continued use of the shooting ground but think that perhaps the LPA are not fully aware of the actual practicalities of running a shoot on shoot days. The Club hope that the LPA would agree with them, that having allowed the principle, the LPA would acquiesce to a use pattern that is sensible in allowing the activity to operate normally. In this context the Club would like normal shoot days to be 10 am to 2.30 pm with Club Championship competition shoots (maximum 5 per year - 1 for each shoot discipline available) extending to 5 pm (summer months only).

In order to clarify and simplify what is requested:

3. The IOW Gun Club intend to arrange a maximum of 28 shoot days per annum

4. The Club request an unrestricted number of Sundays within the maximum 28 day limit. (Although it is understood that 20 or 21 Sundays could allow the club to operate 'at a pinch').

5. The Club request that shoot days can be extended from 4 hours to 4½ hours.

6. The Club request that upon a maximum of 5 of the 28 shoot days per annum they may increase the hours to 7, i.e. 10 am to 5 pm.

7. The Club understand that all of the other previous restrictions will still apply.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is well outside any designated development envelope and is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, accordingly policies C1, C2, L1 and L9 are appropriate.

UDP policy C1 seeks to protect landscape character whether viewed from land or sea and development should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there.

Policy C2 seeks to protect the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty stating that planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and:

(a) meet a proven national need where there are no alternative sites;

(b) specifically involve the maintenance or development of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and/or be for the benefit of the local rural economy and the people who live there;

(d) reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development,

(e) are within a defined development envelope.

Policy L1 relates to the informal recreation provision in the countryside providing they do not conflict with the need to protect the natural and built heritage of the Island.

Policy L2 relates to formal recreation provision stating that they will be acceptable in principle provided that they are located within or adjacent to, existing settlement boundaries and:

(a) there are no unresolvable traffic problems;

(b) conditions limiting hours of use are applied where necessary;

Policy L9 relates directly to noisy sports stating that they may be permitted where:

(a) they do not adversely impact on sensitive areas, including the coast and inland waterways;

(b) they have a main road location and adequate access;

L9 goes on to suggest that existing mineral workings should be considered as a first option where the proposal will not prejudice the long term extraction of material. In some cases a temporary or time limited consent may be considered appropriate.

PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) recognises the impact that noisy sports can have.

PPG24 (Planning and Noise) sets out the considerations in respect of developments involving generation of noise.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer recognises the noise sensitive location but is not prepared to recommend any lengthening of the limitations already imposed.

AONB Officer remains of the opinion that the activity in this location is not conducive with the conservation and enhancement of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Remains of the opinion that the conditions imposed are appropriate and necessary and accepts that the permission already granted allows the Club to retain a level of use which existed through permitted development rights. Accordingly the AONB Officer objects strongly to a further relaxation of conditions imposed.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council support the application pointing out that the Gun Club have been established in the parish for over one hundred years and that the majority of parishioners do not object.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of excessive noise and objecting to any increase in opportunities to shoot. One writer suggests that practising could take place elsewhere or on the Saturdays required by existing conditions.

One further letter of objection from the Sheepwash Lane Residents Association pointing out that the club have held 14 Sunday events since the grant of planning permission and then a further event on 23 November, thus breaching the conditions limiting their activity to 14 Sundays per annum and by holding an event on Remembrance Sunday.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Following the grant of planning permission subject to conditions in April of this year, the Gun Club have continued to operate at this site, as before. The application submitted does not seek to increase the number of days available to them (limited to 28 per annum) but seeks to vary conditions 3 and 4 which limit the use to a maximum of 14 Sundays and limits the use to 4 hours during any shooting event and between the hours of 1000 to 1700 hours. As previously mentioned above, the Club seek use of the site for clay pigeon shooting on an unlimited number of Sundays up to a maximum of 28 per annum, still within the 28 days maximum per annum and to increase the time available for shooting from 4 to 4½ hours to enable events to run their normal course but, in addition, a maximum of 5 days per year (of the 28 day maximum) to operate for a longer period of between 10 am and 5 pm when there are Championship competition shoots.

Local residents, supported by the AONB Officer and Environmental Health Officer do not wish to see any increase in shooting at the site as it is felt that this would result in increased period of noise generated at the site.

Conversely the Club argue that in being able to co-ordinate their shooting days with those of the Newport and District Rifle Club rather than being limited to 14 Sundays and 14 Saturdays (in effect), the number of days when shooting occurs will be minimised.

The Newport and District Rifle Club have an unrestricted and permanent permission and therefore are able to shoot up to 365 days per year if they so wished. However, the NDRC shoot in the adjoining sand pit where reports are muffled and, indeed, shooting takes place in the opposite direction from that of the clay pigeon shooting. In addition, it is understood that shotguns are inherently noisier than other firearms and therefore more likely to cause greater sound impacts.

With specific reference to the hours of operation during shoot days, I do not consider an additional 30 minutes is likely to make a significant difference. However, any increase to 7 hours shooting means, effectively, all day on a Sunday which I do not consider to be acceptable despite the fact that only 5 occasions per year are proposed. Furthermore the removal of the restrictions which currently allow only 14 Sundays of the 28 days allowed could result in shooting at the site every other Sunday throughout the year which I do not accept is tolerable. Accordingly refusal is recommended.

Finally, it appears that since the grant of permission, the Gun Club have operated on the site in excess of their conditional permission, breaching some of the conditions. During the processing of the application, as is usual practice, no action has been taken against the breach of conditions. If the Committee accept the recommendation and consider it appropriate to attach a covering letter with the decision notice advising the Club of the Committee's requirement for them to adhere to the conditions; the likelihood that the Council will issue a Breach of Condition Notice if breaches continue and their right of appeal against refusal of permission.

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

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the removal of hours and days controls as proposed would result in an unacceptable increase in duration/frequency of noise generation from the site which would be detrimental to the living conditions of the adjoining residential properties.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposed variation of the operational restrictions imposed by the conditions would result in an unacceptable frequency or duration of noise emanating from the activities taking place on site which would be unacceptable and detrimental to the amenities of the nearby residential properties.

2. That a covering letter be sent with the decision notice to advise the applicants of the Committee's dissatisfaction with the breach of conditions and the likelihood of service of a Breach of Condition Notice if the breach continues.

TCP/13691/G P/01510/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 28/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr A Lucas

2 detached houses with garages; vehicular access, (further revised plans) (re-advertised application)

land between 'Spindles' (62) and Harewood Lodge (66), Clatterford Road, Newport, PO30

Members will recall visiting the application site and viewing it from Carisbrooke Castle on 24 October this year when it was resolved to defer consideration so that further negotiations could take place. In particular, Members considered that the proposed balconies and decking were inappropriate in this location and considered that the roof line of the properties should be set at a level to minimise impact on neighbouring properties and the view of the site from Carisbrooke Castle. As a result of discussions with the agents, revised plans have been submitted showing alterations to the front elevation of each proposed dwelling and a section produced showing the relationship of this development with adjoining properties, namely Harewood Lodge and Spindles.

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application has proved to be particularly contentious and has raised a number of issues that warrant committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twenty weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications because of the need to ensure receipt of all consultee comments, the need for a Committee consideration, a Committee site visit and subsequent negotiations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an irregular shaped site surrounded on all sides by residential properties. To the south is a prominent Grade II Listed Building (Harewood Lodge), to the north east is a split level bungalow (Spindles), immediately north west are properties fronting Nodgham Lane and to the south east are properties fronting Clatterford Road separated from the application site by the driveway serving Harewood Lodge.

The site slopes away from the north west to the south east boundary and contains a number of trees, three of which are protected by a recently confirmed Tree Preservation Order. There is a substantial 2 metre high beech hedge between the site and the property to the north east with a 1.8 metre high leylandi hedge along part of the rear boundary. Although the application site is under the same ownership as Harewood Lodge, the two are almost totally separated by a line of substantial natural growth consisting of both deciduous and coniferous specimens.

The application site, Spindles, Harewood Lodge and 60 Clatterford Road are served by a shared access drive off Clatterford Road. This has a metalled finish and varies in width from 3.6 metres to 2.6 metres.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent, including siting and means of access, was conditionally approved for two bungalows in January 2001.

Detailed consent was refused for two houses in June of this year under the delegated powers procedure. Reasons for refusal can be summarised as follows:

The proposed development, by reason of its scale, mass and design, would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the adjoining listed building.

From the information that was submitted, it was considered that the landscape setting of the site would be jeopardised and, in consequence, the proposal would be detrimental to the character of the area which forms part of the AONB.

Repetition of the same design.

Unsatisfactory access.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent is sought for two detached houses. Both houses would be dug into the slope so that they appear two storey from the front and single storey at the back. The houses have been designed with their living accommodation at first floor level in order to benefit from the distant views. Each house would have four bedrooms (one en suite), bathroom and an attached garage at ground floor level with a lounge, dining room, kitchen/diner and a WC at first floor level. There would be a balcony across part of the front and over the side garage of each dwelling.

Although both proposed houses would offer a similar level of accommodation, plot 1 (closest to Harewood Lodge) would be marginally smaller and less detailed in design than plot 2, (nearest to Spindles). Both houses would be finished with cedar cladding and colour washed render under a slate roof. The three protected trees and the substantial belt of natural growth between the application site and Harewood Lodge are shown to be retained. The dwelling on plot 1 is shown to be approximately 18 metres north of Harewood Lodge and 3 metres from the north western boundary. The dwelling on plot 2 would be situated approximately 2 metres away from the beech hedge along the north eastern boundary and some 15 metres from the nearest part of Spindles. It is proposed to widen the access at the junction with Clatterford Road in order to facilitate the additional traffic associated with the proposed development.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages the efficient use of land in urban areas but stresses that this should not be at the expense of cramped development. The government attaches particular importance to the "greening" of residential environments and states that landscaping should be an integral part of new development and opportunities should be taken for the retention of existing trees and shrubs, and for new plantings.

The site is situated within the development envelope boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and is also situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The following UDP policies are considered applicable:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S6 - All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

B2 - Settings of Listed Buildings.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be restricted to Defined Settlements.

H5 - Infill Development.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

The Council's Conservation Officer states:

"On the understanding that the trees and landscaping as shown on the plans will be retained and controlled by conditions, I am of the opinion that the revised details for the dwellings would not adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building, or the longer distant views of the site from the Conservation Area in the vicinity of Carisbrooke Castle."

Senior Countryside Officer states:

"Given the existing outline consent I can see no reason to refuse it now. The most important tree to protect is the sycamore between the two plots. I have made a TPO to protect this tree and others on the site, because of the effect on the views.... The sycamore in particular, although a good specimen, is vulnerable because of its location and special precautions are necessary to ensure that it is undamaged. This should include a condition that the driveway, which encroaches on the crown of the tree, is (and remains) a permeable surface laid over the existing ground level, so that no root disturbance occurs nor loss of soil drainage or aeration."

The AONB Planning and Information Officer states:

"Further to our comments on earlier schemes for this proposal, we do appreciate some attempt has been made in terms of revised siting to enable these houses to sit more comfortably in the landscape, particularly in terms of retaining tree cover.

However, we remain concerned at the proposed height and scale of this revised scheme, particularly considering the adjacent property (Spindles) is a bungalow. We suggest that the applicant submits a photo montage to illustrate how the proposed development would sit in the landscape in relation to adjoining properties, in order to assess its impact on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty."

Following submission by applicant’s agent of a pictorial presentation of the houses in the landscape, further comments have been received from AONB Planning and Information Officer. She comments that the artist (architect) has captured well the objective to retain the leafy green foil surrounding development, which characterises this area of settlement and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In particular, she notes that the illustration suggests that the green foil between the proposed houses and existing houses along the eastern side of Nodgham Lane would be visible from Carisbrooke Road. She would wish to ensure that the heights and levels of the final built development do in fact achieve what is illustrated in the artistic impression and that landscaping and planting conditions of any permission granted ensure that this is maintained. With regard to the general design of the two proposed houses, it is considered that they no longer mimic each other in design and therefore sit more comfortably with the diverse style of design and materials that characterises this area of settlement and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The only remaining reservation is the elaborate use of decking on the front elevations.

The AONB Planning and Information Officer has inspected the revised plans and comments as follows:

"The recessing and decrease in scale of the balcony structures now shown on the revised plans represents a significant beneficial change to the design of these buildings. It is our opinion that this helps to blend them in with the existing street scene and character of this part of the AONB."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Carisbrooke West Community Forum objects on grounds of overdevelopment and also has concerns over increased traffic, and parking related problems for Clatterford Road residents.

Five letters of objection from neighbours and local residents which can be summarised as follows:

Loss of light and privacy.

Increase in vehicular activity.

Loss of trees would constitute a major change to the character of the area.

Principle.

Impact on character of the area through cramped appearance and excessive density.

Suitability of existing access.

Damage to trees during construction work.

The relationship between the sycamore and plot 1 is such that future requests to remove the tree are inevitable.

Access alterations onto Clatterford Road would alter character of area.

The approval of the two bungalows includes a condition stating that the dwellings should be single storey only, the reason for which is in the interests of the amenities of the area.

Parking requirements have been underestimated.

Backland development.

Inadequate sewerage system to accommodate the proposed development.

Additional letter received from co-owner of adjoining property reiterating grounds of objection detailed in earlier letter. In addition, some procedural issues were raised regarding briefing of Members and the public speaking procedure.

One letter received from a local resident confirming that she has no particular objection to the proposal.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope for Newport and is the subject of an extant outline consent for two bungalows. The principle of two dwellings is therefore established. Therefore, the main consideration in respect of this proposal is whether the developer has satisfactorily overcome the previous reasons for refusal in order to justify approval of this latest application.

SETTING OF LISTED BUILDING

The Listed Building dates from the early nineteenth century and is a villa style dwelling with a low pitched hipped roof, rendered elevations and a distinctive veranda. Although situated outside of the Conservation Area, it is a prominent feature in the landscape, particularly when viewed from the grounds of Carisbrooke Castle where the building is seen against a background of a garden with tree screening.

The latest proposal shows that the dwelling on plot 1, which would be closest to the Listed Building, has been reduced in size and the design simplified in order to reduce the visual impact. The dwelling has also been positioned to minimise its impact on existing trees and landscape screening between plot 1 and the Listed Building. On the basis of the distance between the Listed Building and plot 1 (some 18 metres), the presence of substantial trees and landscaping together with the revised design proposals, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would not adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building, or the longer distant views of the site from the Conservation Area in the vicinity of Carisbrooke Castle.

LANDSCAPE SETTING

The site does have important landscape characteristics that contribute to the pleasant suburban character of this part of Carisbrooke. Such features are particularly important when viewed from Carisbrooke Castle as it is from this direction that the character of the built environment between Clatterford Road and Nodgham Lane, i.e. low density, detached houses, offset amongst mature trees, is fully realised.

It is my opinion that the revised proposals have due regard to the landscape features of the site. The three trees recently protected by a TPO are shown to be retained. All three of these trees play an important role, but the sycamore is considered to be the most important because of its potential to partially screen the proposed development from Carisbrooke Castle. The spatial relationship of this development with the sycamore is similar, if not arguably better, than the siting of the two bungalows as approved under the extant outline consent. The Council's Senior Countryside Officer is also of the view that the latest proposal is acceptable on landscape grounds, particularly when considering the outline consent. He does, however, suggest a condition stating that the driveway, which partially encroaches on the crown spread of the tree is (and remains) a permeable surface laid over the existing ground level, so that no root disturbance occurs, nor loss of soil drainage or aeration.

Whilst noting concerns of the AONB Planning and Information Officer in respect of the decking on the front elevation of the dwellings, these features are not considered to be inappropriate and I am satisfied that they will not have significant impact to the detriment of the landscape character of the locality.

DESIGN

Previous application proposed two houses which, other than being handed, were identical in all respects. This was considered to be a form of repetitive development that would not have fitted comfortably into its surroundings because of the mix of dwellings in proximity to the application site. Views from Carisbrooke Castle show Victorian style semi detached houses, substantial detached properties, bungalows and chalet bungalows. Although there are clear similarities between plots 1 and 2, I am of the opinion that they are sufficiently different to overcome the previous reason for refusal.

In terms of the actual design, there can be no doubt that the external appearance of both dwellings is individual and would bear little resemblance to other dwellings in the immediate area. It is my opinion that this should not necessarily be seen as a negative aspect of the proposed development, particularly when considering the mix of dwelling types surrounding the application site. Also, the simplified design and reduced scale of plot 1 will help to reduce the visual impact of that property relative to the adjoining Listed Building.

One objector has made specific reference to a condition on the outline consent which states that the approved dwellings should be single storey only in the interests of the amenities of the area. It was recognised at the time of the outline consent that two single storey properties would have limited impact on the surrounding area with that impact likely to be greater in the winter rather than the summer when trees are not in leaf. Two houses as proposed would most certainly be greater in scale and mass than the two bungalows approved under the outline consent but, in my opinion, would not appear cramped or out of character because of the sufficient space retained between buildings and the acceptable design as detailed above.

Members considered the extent of the proposed balconies and decking to be inappropriate in this location. The agent was therefore invited to omit these elements from the proposal. Revised plans were duly submitted, but it was felt that the total omission of balconies would compromise the design quality of each dwelling. Further plans were therefore submitted showing each dwelling to have a centrally located enclosed verandah with a pitched roof over each side garage where it was originally proposed to have extensive balustrading. The impact of the proposed verandah has been further reduced by the use of clear glazed panels rather than balustrading. I am firmly of the opinion that the revised proposal before Members strikes an appropriate and acceptable balance between minimising the impact of balconies whilst not compromising the design quality of each dwelling. Photographic evidence has also been submitted confirming that other dwellings in Nodgham Lane have balconies facing Carisbrooke Castle, therefore suggesting that an acceptable element of balcony area would not be out of character. A further advantage of having an enclosed verandah is that the solid screening along both sides would eliminate the possibility of overlooking, particularly to the neighbouring property known as Spindles.

The agent has also produced a section showing the relationship of the proposed dwellings with neighbouring properties, particularly those to the rear and either side of the site. In respect of those properties behind, the section suggests that the proposed dwellings would, by reason of their split level nature, appear single storey from behind, whilst following the natural gradient of the site. The section does indicate that the development would be higher than Spindles by around 1.5 metres. However, having regard to the distance between the proposed development and Spindles (approximately 15 metres) the difference in height is not considered to be significant particularly when considering the varied roofscape in the surrounding area.

ACCESS

Means of access was considered at the time of the outline application. This included alterations to the existing access onto Clatterford Road. The current proposal is the same in access terms as the extant consent. I therefore see no justifiable reason on highway grounds to withhold consent. The proposed parking arrangements for each dwelling comply with development plan policy.

In terms of the impact upon the privacy and amenities currently enjoyed by neighbours, the main concern to be addressed is the potential for overlooking from the proposed windows and balconies. The proposed dwellings would be situated approximately 30 metres away from the boundary shared with the back gardens of Clatterford Road properties. Not only does this boundary comprise a high evergreen hedge, but there is also a substantial belt of natural growth between the proposed dwellings and the south eastern boundary. I am therefore of the opinion that any loss of privacy to the nearby properties fronting Clatterford Road would not be of significance.

The owner of Spindles is concerned that the balcony serving plot 2 may give rise to overlooking and general disturbance. The agent has confirmed that the respective side of the balcony would be fitted with an appropriate screen to minimise overlooking. It is my opinion that the curved part of the balcony to the front would not give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking. General disturbance is unlikely to be significant particularly when considering that the balcony would be approximately 20 metres away from the nearest part of Spindles. Furthermore, I would recommend a condition in respect of the first floor side facing window to ensure that it is fitted with obscure glass at all times as well as being kept fixed shut.

Concern has been expressed regarding drainage and, in particular, if the existing private drain serving Clatterford Road properties has sufficient capacity to accommodate additional sewage. The agent has recently confirmed that the proposed development would not tap into the existing drain but would be taken straight to the public sewer via a new drain to be laid along the line of the drive.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating two houses whilst still retaining the main trees on site and without compromising the character of the area which is designated as an AONB. I am also of the opinion that the siting and design is such that the amenities of the adjoining property occupiers would not be compromised by this development. I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable and does not conflict with policies contained in the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul water disposal. Any such scheme shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists to ensure that additional flows do not cause overloading of the existing system. The agreed system shall be retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to occupation of either of the dwellings hereby approved, the access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be widened and constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing on site. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of four parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Provision of turning area - K40
7	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the level of the land highlighted yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be lowered and the existing highway footway shall be widened in accordance with a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The resultant visibility splays shall be subsequently kept free of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	The landscaping scheme shall be completed within six months from the completion of the last building shell, 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	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 unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Before the balcony to the house on Plot 2 is brought into use, a solid/opaque screen to a minimum height of 1.8 metres shall be erected on the north eastern perimeter and shall be retained thereafter, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	The first floor window in the north east elevation of the dwelling on of Plot 2 shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass and fixed shut. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	No development shall take place until a specification of the proposed driveway, parking and turning area including levels, method of construction and surface has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interest of the amenities of the area and to comply with policies D1 and C12 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, shrubs and other natural features, not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	The existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the southern boundary between the application site and Harewood Lodge shall be retained and maintained and, where necessary, reinforced with further planting, the details of which shall accord with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area in general and the setting of the adjoining Listed Building in particular and to comply with policies D1 and B2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
18	All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from site prior to the construction of the dwellings proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/18533/L P/01972/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 27/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr D Hughes

Entrance gates

Clatterford House, Clatterford Shute, Newport, PO301PD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The applicant is an employee of the Council within Planning Services.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken seven weeks to the date of the committee meeting. A determination at this meeting would mean that the application had been dealt with within the prescribed eight week time limit for determination of planning applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application relates to a detached Grade II listed building known as Clatterford House located on western side of Clatterford Shute approximately forty metres from junction with Bowcombe Road. The property is located in the northeastern corner of the site with the side of the property fronting the highway. The house is constructed of red brick with a plain tile roof. There is a large parking area at the front of the property with an extensive garden stretching in a southwesterly direction.

RELEVANT HISTORY

LBC/18533/H – Listed building consent was granted in June 2000 for the demolition of two redundant chimneys; external alterations to include refurbishment of roof, windows and reconstruction of garden wall.

LBC/18533/J – Listed building consent was granted in May 2002 for the demolition of Victorian bay on south east elevation; construction of new entrance doors and veranda and provision of new windows at first floor level.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought to construct entrance gates in black wrought iron, 4.7 metres in width and with a maximum height of 2.2 metres. The gates would span the present vehicular access at the northeastern boundary of the site, immediately in front of the dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

B2 Settings of Listed Buildings

C2 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

D1 Standards of Design

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer recommends conditions should Members be minded to approve application.

The Council’s Conservation Officer comments as follows:

“ The proposed wrought iron gates are decoratively designed and the applicant has suggested a small hedge will be planted adjacent each side of the new gates, linking the existing rendered pillar and the boundary wall.

The proposal is considered to be of an appropriate design, providing an attractive feature in place of the existing open vehicular entrance, enhancing the setting of this listed building.”

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The application seeks consent to erect black wrought iron entrance gates adjacent the northeastern boundary of the site. The principle planning issues to consider in respect to this development relate to the effect of the gates on the setting of the Listed Building and the impact of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as well as neighbouring properties and the adjoining highway.

The decorative gates would make a feature of a previous open vehicular entrance with a design that would enhance the setting of the listed building and create a more defined parking area at the front of the property. The addition of hedging to the sides of the gates would better set the gates into the countryside setting and would tie the development into the existing pedestrian access pillars, reducing any possible impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposed development will be set back from the highway at a distance of at least three metres in order to comply with Highway Engineer's requirements and allow a vehicle to move off the highway when needing to open the gates.

The development would not have an affect on the amenities of neighbouring properties and would not detract from the character of the building.

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 referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the gates would not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality or the special architectural character of the building. In this regard the proposed development would comply with the policies B2 Setting of a Listed Building, C2 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and D1 Standards of Design.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The surfaces of the proposed gates shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a black colour unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area and character of the existing building and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any gates to be provided shall be set back a distance of three metres from the edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway, in accordance with the approved plans 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to work commencing on site details of the planting between the gates and the boundary of the site with Clatterford Shute, as shown on the approved plans, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The planting shall be carried out within one month of the erection of the gates or such other period as may be agreed and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) and C2 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

11.

TCP/18927/A P/01720/03 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge North

Registration Date: 11/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs C Wrenn

Demolition of dwelling; replacement detached dwelling divided into one single storey block & one 2 storey block with glazed bridge link; covered parking & detached workshop

Pump Lane House, Pump Lane, Bembridge, Isle Of Wight, PO355NG

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

There are conflicting policies in respect of this development that require thorough and careful consideration before a balanced judgement can be made.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The processing of this minor application has taken fourteen weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed time limit because of ongoing negotiations and subsequent consultations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a site at the junction of Beach Road and Pump Lane situated directly opposite a new residential development by the name of "Solent Landing". The existing building is a substantial two storey dwelling with rendered elevations under a hipped slate roof and is located adjacent the boundary with Pump Lane. The site is well screened with extensive tree and shrub landscaping to Beach Road and a two metre high red brick wall to Pump Lane. Although the site is in a prominent location, the existing dwelling itself is not a particularly dominant feature owing to the level of landscaping.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline consent for a dwelling and garage refused in May 1986 on grounds of principle, undesirable intensification of residential development and loss of privacy to Pump House.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for a replacement dwelling. The proposed dwelling is shown to be situated in a central position, rather than on the site of the existing house adjacent the southern boundary. The proposed dwelling is divided into two separate wings connected by a glazed link. The northern wing is the longest of the two, is single storey in height with limited accommodation in the roofspace. The southern wing is two storey with accommodation in the roofspace, stepped further back and at an oblique angle to the northern wing.

In terms of overall size, the existing and proposed dwellings have volumes of 1,274 and 1,278 cubic metres respectively. The walls of the proposed dwelling would be constructed of cedar boarding with strong emphasis on clear glazing. The rear (east) elevation of each wing and the front elevation of the two storey wing would be entirely constructed of glass. The roof would be finished with cedar shingles.

The following has been extracted from the submitted design statement:

"The local characteristic for the location of houses is for them to be situated fairly centrally on their plots, although sometimes with garaging located nearer the roadway.... The proposed new house respects this local tradition by being located centrally on its plot and with its main block aligning roughly with the western fronts of other Beach Road houses. This location also means much improved southerly, easterly and westerly daylight and sunlight to the principal rooms.

The proposed new building is envisaged as being a reinterpretation of vernacular seaside houses and boat houses. It does so by using traditional forms such as simple, long, steeply pitched roofs and glazed gables, and by using many traditional materials such as exposed timber boarding and timber roof shingles. The proposed new building is divided into two separate blocks in order to reduce its apparent overall bulk and to help organise the site; the first block being single storey high and the second being two storeys high."

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant national policies are contained in PPG1 (revised) - General Policies and Principles. This places emphasis on the importance of design:

"13. The appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are therefore material considerations in determining planning applications and appeals......"

The document goes on to advise that applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken into account good design in their development proposals paying due regard to Development Plan policies and supplementary design guidance. Significantly, paragraph 17 advises that Local Planning Authorities should reject poor design and states:

".... poor design may include those inappropriate to their context or those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings."

With regard to the design issue, the document advises that Local Planning Authorities should not attempt to impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily and should not concern themselves with matters of detail except where they may have a significant effect on the character or quality of the area including neighbouring buildings.

The application site is shown as being just outside of the development boundary for Bembridge as identified on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The following policies of the UDP are considered to be relevant:

S1 - New developments will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S6 - All developments will be expected to be of a high standard of design.

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages.

G2 - Consolidation and infilling of scattered settlements outside development envelopes.

G5 - Development outside defined settlements.

D1 - Standards of design.

H9 - Residential development outside development boundaries.

C1 - Protection of landscape character.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to conditions.

English Nature has lodged a holding objection pending further information from the applicant. There is a concern that the proposal may have an impact on protected species, in particular on bats within the building to be demolished. English Nature request that further information is submitted before the application is determined.

Ecology Officer confirms that there is clear evidence of a bat roost and accordingly has written to the agent advising of such and confirming that the developer will need to obtain a licence from DEFRA, under the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, before the building is demolished. The licence is likely to require certain conditions, namely the timing of demolition and a requirement for mitigation and these should also be the subject of any planning approval granted.

The Council's Conservation Officer recognises that the existing building is a fairly attractive dwelling of traditional appearance relating well to nearby buildings. He confirms that it is not listed and in his opinion is not of listable quality. He confirms that the application site is not in a Conservation Area and under these circumstances does not believe that the replacement of the building could be resisted. He notes the comparative sizes of the existing and proposed buildings but is of the opinion that the layout and configuration of the proposed development makes it appear larger than existing dwellings but does not consider this to be a major issue given that the site is large and well screened. His main concern relates to the footprint of the proposed dwelling and that this may have a significant impact on the existing landscape which is an important element of the site, both in its own right and to screen the new building.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· If the dwelling needs to be replaced then it should be of similar size and Edwardian style.

· The gradual loss of traditional houses would alter character of Bembridge.

· Proximity to adjoining dwelling.

· Loss of privacy and light.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is situated outside of the development envelope and is therefore considered to form part of the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy. Policy H9 specifically deals with residential development outside of development boundaries, and lists six categories of housing development that may be acceptable. Since the proposed dwelling is not for an agricultural worker, is not a conversion, a tourist related development or an affordable home, it is my view that only infill development and replacement dwellings are worthy of further consideration. In terms of the former, when giving due regard to the normally accepted definition of infilling, i.e. the infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage or group of houses, it is my opinion that this development is not infilling meaning that this caveat should be given little weight.

The main consideration in respect of this application is whether the development satisfies criterion (a) of Policy H9 which refers to "a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling". The aforementioned policy should also be read in conjunction with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) which requires new development to enhance the quality and character of the built environment by respecting the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area, whilst being sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing and of a height, mass and density compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses.

With regard to scale and mass, while recognising that the proposed dwelling is very similar to the current property in volume and footprint terms, it is my opinion that the layout, configuration and contrasting design relative to the existing makes the proposal appear larger than the original and therefore could not necessarily be justified as being of "similar scale and mass". However, I consider the unique and distinctive design to be a material consideration and feel that this should be balanced against the issue of scale and mass.

In design terms, the "safe" option would be to design a dwelling which reflects the traditional appearance of the existing house. The agent has taken a more radical approach seeking consent for a modern and innovative design, but at the same time incorporating aspects of vernacular seaside architecture which is not necessarily out of context within this maritime location.

It is a common theme in development plan policy that new development should reflect the character and identity of its surroundings through design and materials. I consider that the scheme under consideration does not necessarily follow these objectives. However, national advice contained in PPG1 warns against the stifling of responsible innovation, originality or initiative. It adds that design policies and guidance should recognise that the qualities of an individual scheme may exceptionally justify departing from them. It is my opinion that the design strengths of the proposal, such as its configuration, materials and overall form, are material considerations which outweigh the perceived increase in scale and mass.

In addition to the acceptable design, I am of the opinion that the central position of the proposed dwelling coupled with the retention of existing boundary planting would constitute an improvement in layout terms while allowing the development to integrate into the surrounding landscape. In respect of the latter, revised plans have been submitted showing the development to be set slightly further back from Beach Road in order to retain much of the boundary planting.

Given the overall size of the plot, the presence of natural growth and the acceptable spatial relationship with adjoining properties, I am of the view that the proposed replacement dwelling would not undermine the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers.

Regarding protected species within the dwelling to be demolished, the agent has been notified in writing by the Council's Ecologist that there is evidence of a bat roost and that the developer will require a licence from DEFRA prior to demolition work. Furthermore, the Ecologist has suggested that an appropriate condition is imposed requesting details of timing and method of demolition together with mitigation and timing measures for alternative bat roost sites within the development. With these points in mind, I see no reason why this application should be further delayed.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed scheme, although not entirely in accordance with the spirit of Policy H9 regarding scale and mass, would introduce a variety and interest with the opportunity of potentially enhancing this pleasantly landscaped corner plot. Therefore, on balance, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in view of other material considerations in favour of the proposal would not prejudice implementation of Policy H9 nor be likely to set a precedent and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development 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.
3	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 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The landscaping scheme shall be completed within six months from the completion of the dwelling, 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Provision of turning area - K40
7	Those trees not directly affected by the proposed development shall be retained and shall not be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To screen the site and protect the appearance and character of the area and to comply with policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to commencement of work the timing and method of demolition of the existing bungalow on the site shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority along with the mitigation and timing of measures for alternative bat roost sites within the development. Any such programme and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to a protected species bats in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	Notwithstanding the requirements of condition no. 8, work shall not commence on the replacement dwelling until the existing property has been completely demolished and all material and debris removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with the requirements of Policy H9 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/21651/C P/01993/03 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date: 09/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr C & Mrs J Holmes

Removal of agricultural occupancy condition on TCP/19655 & TCP/19655A

Hermitage Court Farm, Whitwell, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382PJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The local Member, Councillor Mrs White, submitted written comments in support of previous application and would therefore by unable to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 10 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week time limits for determination of planning applications due to the need to obtain comments from an agricultural consultant on the merits of the case.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to chalet style property, the subject of an agricultural occupancy restriction, situated in isolated rural location on down land some 2 kilometres to west of Whitwell. Land surrounding property is undulating, rising to west and falling to east into valley.

Holding comprises area of land of approximately 5 hectares, some 0.8 hectares is owned by the applicant while the balance is held under a lease from the National Trust.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19655/S/22716 - Outline planning permission for agricultural workers dwelling conditionally approved July 1988. Permission was subject to a condition restricting occupancy of dwelling as follows:

"The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry, or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person."

TCP/19655/A/S/24395 - Approval of reserved matters granted for agricultural workers dwelling in August 1989. Permission was again subject to condition restricting occupancy as detailed above.

A complaint was received by the authority during January 2001 alleging that the occupants of the dwelling were not employed in agriculture and were therefore in breach of the occupancy restriction. A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the owners of the property and, following receipt of information in response to the notice, it was established that, at that time, the owners were not in breach of the occupancy restriction and the complainant was advised accordingly.

TCP/21651/B - P/00209/03 - Application seeking removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction was refused on grounds that applicant had not adequately demonstrated that the dwelling is no longer required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry in the locality.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks to remove the agricultural occupancy condition imposed on the outline planning permission and approval of reserved matters thereby releasing the dwelling from the occupancy restriction. Application was accompanied by a farm business viability report which was submitted in respect of previous submission providing information in support of the applicants case. The report addressed a number of areas, including a description of the holding, past and present farming system, alternative farming systems and the demand for other potential qualifying occupants. The latter provided details of measures carried out in order to determine the demand for the property, having regard to the occupancy restriction, including sale of the property on the open market and survey of farmers in the locality who may be interested in either buying or renting the property.

Current submission was also accompanied by further information in support of proposal, which is attached as an appendix, together with additional information on the marketing exercise which has been undertaken, including the period since the previous refusal.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside provides advice on the role of the planning system in relation to the countryside. In particular, the guidance note contains an Annexe which deals specifically with the issue of agricultural and forestry dwellings. The guidance note advises that the Local Planning Authority should monitor the operation of occupancy conditions and should take appropriate action where they are not being complied with. In terms of assessing the continued need for such an occupancy restriction on a dwelling, the guidance note provides the following advice:

"Changes in the scale and character of farming and forestry in response to market changes may affect the long term requirement for dwellings for which permission has been granted subject to an occupancy condition of the type set out above. Such dwellings should not be kept vacant, nor should their present occupants be unnecessarily obliged to remain in occupation simply by virtue of planning conditions restricting occupancy which have outlived their usefulness. Applications for the removal of occupancy conditions should be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the existing need for them, bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the particular holding that is relevant."

Site is located well outside any settlement defined by the development boundaries on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the holding is immediately adjacent area of land designated as a Site of Important for Nature Conservation. The Unitary Development Plan does not contain any policy specifically relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. However, policies considered relevant to the provision of residential accommodation in the countryside are set out below:

S1 - New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas;

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development;

G1 - Development envelopes for towns and villages;

G4 - General locational criteria for development;

G5 - Development outside defined settlements;

H9 - Residential development outside development boundaries.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

No highway implications anticipated.

AONB Officer comments that the siting of this new build within an AONB was given as a reason for the original conditioning of an agricultural occupancy restriction on this property in the early 1990s. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act has further strengthened the conservation and enhancement of AONBs reflected in amendments made to Government Planning Policy Guidance 7 (PPG7). Whilst he welcomes the submission of further information in support of this application, it is his opinion that there remains insufficient detail on the process and results of the marketing of the property with its agricultural restriction encumbrance. He suggests that there is now also a need to consider the further information provided in support of the application alongside the report compiled by an independent consultant for the Local Authority. Having read through both documents he is of the opinion that the Local Planning Authority's Consultant offers a detailed assessment of the recent local market and demand for properties with agricultural occupancy restrictions, providing a general local need. Therefore, he believes it is essential to have a clear and detailed report on the marketing of Hermitage Court Farm at a value reflecting its present agricultural occupancy restriction, in line with the suggested best practice outlined in their previous comments. Without such detailed report on marketing, any request for removal of this condition should be resisted by the Local Planning Authority.

He notes that the applicant's agent mentions recent upheld appeal decision relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions and having looked at the Inspector's report he would suggest that a number of significant factors in the Inspector's decision are not transferable to this application. In particular, although outside of any development envelope, the property referred to was not in a protected landscape or immediately adjacent to a site of interest for nature conservation. He suggests that there are many appeal decisions regarding the removal of agricultural occupancy restrictions within protected landscapes that support the requirement for a clear demonstration of lack of need by the applicant. In view of these comments, AONB Officer wishes to express continued objection to this application.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal to application on grounds that agricultural occupancy of the dwelling was the original intention.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

8 letters received from local residents, 2 from the same household, objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Dwellings of this type still required for farm workers and retiring farmers.

Original agricultural justification only reason why dwelling was approved in this location.

Removal of agricultural tie would deprive farm worker of change of getting foothold on property market.

Approval of application would open floodgates for similar proposals.

Removal of agricultural tie and occupation of property unrelated to agriculture would adversely impact on agricultural operations of adjacent farm due to close proximity of dwelling to the farm buildings - dairy farm at Ryde cited as example of likely problems.

Dwelling still meets need for accommodation for agricultural workers but is overpriced - price not changed since previous application.

Farming is evolving and converting to alternative production methods, eg organic.

Other properties used for comparison purposes not comparable with this dwelling.

Many of arguments forwarded to justify removal of occupancy restriction questioned.

Well managed holding would enhance area.

Offers made by prospective purchasers but not pursued.

Recent interest in property demonstrates it is still required for farm workers.

Property sold to present owners at price which reflected agricultural tie - applicants were aware of tie and land available to them when they purchased the property.

Adequate land available to earn living - surrounding land farmed satisfactorily.

Removal of tie would considerably increase value of property putting it out of reach of agricultural workers.

Compliance with agricultural restriction over period applicants have owned property is questioned - very limited or no agricultural activities undertaken during this time.

2 letters received in support of application. One correspondent, an owner of a large holding, comments that the farming activities undertaken by them are not sufficient to support two people, one of them being forced to seek employment elsewhere. Furthermore, they comment that it would be impossible to earn a living from limited acreage available to the applicants. Property with such small area of land makes agricultural tie impossible to justify.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The dwelling was originally permitted as an exception to policies which would generally resist further development in such locations on grounds that the submission was accompanied by information which demonstrated that there was an essential agricultural need. Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that there is no longer a need for a dwelling for somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the holding within their control.

In the report which accompanied the previous application, also submitted in respect of current submission, the author highlights the factors which contribute to the difficulty in operating a viable farm business from the land and achieving sufficient income for the applicants. These include the limited area of land forming the holding, exposed location and topography, difficulties in satisfying environmental impact regulations and nitrate vulnerable zone regulations, location of site within a high quality landscape and the fact the land is subject to a lease from the National Trust with restrictive covenants. The value of the landscape and the regulations referred to would clearly present difficulties in operating an intensive agricultural activity on the land. However, occupation of the dwelling by person solely, mainly or last working in the locality in agriculture would satisfy the requirements of the condition and the income need not be derived solely from the land which presently forms the applicants holding.

The report also included details of an examination as to whether the farmhouse could be occupied by other qualifying individuals. For this purpose, the applicants consultant has acknowledged that the locality includes the whole of the Isle of Wight. Exercises carried out to determine the demand from other qualifying occupants has included the marketing of the property since February 2001 with a variety of agents. This exercise has failed to attract a buyer for the property who would satisfy the occupancy restriction. A postal survey of farmers has also been undertaken with letters sent to 119 farmers on the Isle of Wight. Only 16 responses were received as a result of this exercise, 15 expressing no need for the house either to buy or rent, and one giving a qualified response although, despite further enquiry, the respondent declined to make any offer either to rent or buy the property.

Current submission was also accompanied by additional information supporting the case for the removal of the occupancy restriction. This comprises further information on the marketing exercise carried out, details of an offer received on the property and a valuation report which includes a comparison with other properties on the Island. The information indicates that an offer of £350,000 was received from a prospective purchaser who subsequently withdrew from the purchase on the basis that she may experience difficulties in selling the property at a later date. Applicant's agent also advises that an offer of £200,000 has been made for the property, although having discussed this with the author of the valuation report, he is of the opinion that this is an opportunist offer at an unrealistic price from someone already living in the area. Officers have discussed this offer with an agricultural consultant, engaged by the Authority to comment on the proposal for the removal of the occupancy restriction, who agrees that this is an unreasonable offer which, in isolation, should be given little weight in determining the application.

The valuation report submitted with the application comments on the observations made in respect of the previous submission by the agricultural consultant engaged by the Authority. In particular, it is suggested that the report produced by the consultant is unsafe and that the author falls into the trap of stating a protocol that it is common practice for the open market value of the property unrestricted to be discounted by approximately one third. The report also questions comparisons of other properties used by the consultant in arriving at a reasonable price of £300,000 for Hermitage Court Farm, reflecting the occupancy restriction. The valuation report prepared on behalf of the applicants concludes that a sum of £365,000 is a realistic asking price for the property and that a reduction in price to £300,000 would not be likely to bring forward offers from qualifying purchasers.

The applicant's agent makes reference to a recent appeal against a decision by this Authority to refuse permission for the removal of an agricultural occupancy restriction on a property at Merstone Lane, Merstone, which was allowed by the Inspector, and considers that there are a number of similarities with his client's case. In particular, the property had an area of land similar to his client's and the Inspector commented that this was not sufficient to make the holding viable. However, advice contained in PPG7, which is set out below, clearly indicates that the need for the dwelling may be for someone solely, mainly, or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just in connection with a particular holding.

The removal of an agricultural occupancy restriction is generally viewed as undermining rural restraint policies and, in areas where there is a demand for agricultural dwellings, it could be argued that any reduction in the supply of accommodation available to the farming community generally would create pressure elsewhere for new dwellings in the countryside. Circular 11/95 provides advice on factors which should be taken into account when dealing with a request to remove an occupancy restriction. In particular, the circular offers the following advice:

"Where an agricultural occupancy condition has been imposed, it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose."

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 also offers the following advice in this respect:

"Applications for the removal of occupancy conditions should be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the existing need for them bearing in mind that it is the need for a dwelling for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in an area as a whole and not just the particular holding that is relevant."

An agricultural consultant was engaged by the Authority when dealing with the previous application to comment on the merits of the application, the purpose of which was to consider whether the applicant has carried out a realistic assessment of the need for the agricultural dwelling. He advised that the marketing of the property, either for sale or for rent, is the single most important factor in determining the need for a dwelling for somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture. In considering the marketing of the property, either for sale or rent, it is essential that the correct marketing price is used so that there is an adequate discount to reflect the agricultural occupancy condition. In this respect, the consultant carried out an assessment of other properties which have been marketed in the area, several with agricultural occupancy restrictions. From this exercise, he considered that the evidence available in respect of agriculturally restricted properties which have either been successfully sold or that could have been sold had the vendor been prepared to accept an offer, clearly demonstrated that there is a demand for properly priced and properly marketed agriculturally tied properties on the Isle of Wight.

In carrying out a comparison of other properties in the area, he considered that Hermitage Court Farm has an unrestricted open market value of £450,000 and that, taking into account the agricultural occupancy condition, the property should be marketed for no more than £300,000. Therefore, whilst he acknowledged that the applicant has marketed the property for a significant period of time, he did not consider that the asking price of £365,000 adequately reflected the agricultural occupancy condition. As a result, he concluded that the marketing campaign did not adequately demonstrate that there is no need for a dwelling to somebody solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just on the subject holding.

Further consultations have been carried out with the consultant engaged by the Authority to comment on the previous application and the additional information and valuation report accompanying the current submission have been considered by him. He remains of the opinion that a marketing price for the property of £300,000 is reasonable. On this issue, he comments that the Inspector dealing with the appeal in respect of the property at Merstone appeared satisfied with the discounted price provided in that instance and commented that, due to the property price escalation in August 2002 the discount reflected a reduction in price of 40% or 50% which was considered reasonable by the Council's Estates Surveyor. In the case of Hermitage Court Farm, he considered that the unrestricted open market value of the property was £450,000 and an asking price of £300,000 represented a reduction of 33%. The consultant has also provided a copy of another appeal decision for the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition, which was dismissed, and in which the Inspector states as follows:

"In my opinion, the value of an agricultural worker's dwelling is no more or less than a qualifying occupier is prepared to pay for it, and it should not be directly linked to the fluctuations in the open property market. With current inflated property prices, coupled with falling agricultural incomes, even the 30% reduction guide could easily place such properties well beyond the reach of most agricultural workers, and they would no longer be available for the people they were designed to accommodate, thereby defeating the purpose of the condition."

The consultant remains of the opinion that the applicants have not demonstrated that the existing need for dwellings for agricultural workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose.

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 in seeking to lift the occupancy restriction in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aims 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, particularly the advice of the agricultural consultant engaged by the Authority to consider the matter, I remain of the opinion that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the agricultural occupancy restriction has outlived its usefulness and that there is no longer a need for the property for someone solely, mainly or last working in agriculture in the area as a whole and not just the subject holding.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

It has not been adequately demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction that the dwelling is no longer required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry in the locality and, therefore, the removal of the condition would be contrary to policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

13.

TCP/22083/E P/01592/03 Parish/Name: Fishbourne Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 12/08/2003 - Reserved Matters

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

Applicant: R M Associates

4 detached houses with garages; alterations to vehicular access; landscaping (aorm)

site of Wainlode, Kite Hill, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LE

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application raises issues which warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken 19 weeks to date.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to detached chalet bungalow (now vacant) and its curtilage which lies immediately north of junction of Barge Lane with Kite Hill. Site currently has access both onto Kite Hill and Barge Lane and has significant slope both to north and west towards the Creek.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline planning consent granted for demolition of dwelling and replacement with four dwellings in February 2002. This was outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.

Subsequently application seeking approval of reserved matters was refused under delegated powers in November 2002. Reasons for refusal related to intrusive development by reason of dwellings having inappropriate size, massing and appearance out of scale and character with neighbouring developments and inadequate and deficient detail in respect of site drainage.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Submitted plans show four detached three bedroom cedar clad properties arranged with living accommodation and balcony area at first floor levels. Buildings would be arranged principally to provide westerly and south westerly views over Barge Lane and Wootton Creek itself.

In terms of layout, two buildings would be located on higher part of site fronting Kite Hill utilising existing central vehicular access with two further units on lower (northern) part of site and follow in general terms illustrative plans submitted with outline application. Additional vehicular access is shown off Barge Lane some 14 metres north of its junction with Kite Hill.

Due to significant slope across site, development will incorporate retaining walls and reconstruction of boundary wall on Barge Lane and Kite Hill frontages and retention of planting along northern and eastern boundaries of site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within development envelope for Wootton and Fishbourne as indicated in adopted UDP.

Following policies are considered to be particularly relevant:

S1 - New Development to be concentrated within existing urban areas.

G1 - Development Envelopes.

G4 - General Locational Criteria.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within Site.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development.

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

PPG3 (Housing) encourages increased densities within urban areas, thereby resulting in sustainable development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Southern Water Services have been consulted and any reply received will be reported at the meeting.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters have been received from local residents which whilst raising no objection raise following concerns:

Need for groundworks and excavation and implications for ground stability in locality.

Need for boundary definition and appropriate treatment.

Appropriateness of access arrangements.

Relationship of buildings to surrounding development.

Impact of construction of buildings on nearby property.

Loss of outlook over dense development and resultant small size of gardens.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Given site's location within development envelope and extant outline consent for four dwellings there can be no objection in principle to this application which seeks reserved matter approval for four detached units.

Previously refused reserved matters application proposed 2/3 storey dwellings with larger footprints involving attached garage units. Furthermore design of plot 1 which occupied important position on Barge Lane frontage was considered to be inappropriate and out of scale with development in locality.

Current submission involves dwellings sited in similar positions to previous proposal but current proposal involves three dwelling units having detached garage units which helps reduce massing of dwellings whilst fourth unit at top end of the site incorporates carport underneath building itself.

Revised scheme also increases distances to northern boundary of site which adjoins properties situated in Barge Lane. Proposal now also incorporates additional access point at northern end of site with existing crossover onto Kite Hill serving remaining three dwelling units and providing central turning area.

In support of application agent advises that scheme has been produced which is sensitive to waterfront setting in terms of layout and materials. Site has had some movement in past and engineer has required lightweight construction for dwellings which is in line with proposal for timber frame and cladding construction. Advantage has been taken of steeply sloping site with dwellings sited at three levels with views over and around lower units which are all single aspect towards river. Retaining structures separate the three levels, the lower of which is to become a planter to the rear of unit 1. Existing boundary walls to be replaced due to its poor condition and will be required to act as sound baffle along Kite Hill which carries large amounts of traffic.

With regard to ground stability, letter is enclosed from competent body who advises that proposed development does not impose an unacceptable risk to existing ground providing work is carried out during suitable dry period before end of October. Disposal of surface and ground water will be by way of Southern Water storm drains either in Kite Hill or Barge Lane dependent on existing invert levels and proximity to site. Point should be made that original outline application was accompanied by soil investigation and confirmation by Building Inspector that sufficient investigation had been carried out to establish the principle of residential development on this site. Members should note that on outline consent condition was attached requiring competent person's assessment of ground conditions and suggested foundation design to be submitted to and approved prior to any development commencing. Should Members agree this reserved matters submission that condition would remain to be discharged by developer.

In terms of details, matters relating to design, appearance and massing of buildings and extent of curtilage around dwelling units, these matters are now considered to be acceptable complying with requirements of PPG3 (Housing) in seeking to maximise use of urban sites.

Front elevations of dwellings which include balconies will look westwards over Barge Lane towards Creek and therefore proposal will not have any undue adverse impact on surrounding residential occupiers.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

In summary, siting, design and orientation of dwellings are considered to be satisfactory representing appropriate development of this site which will take maximum advantage of creekside views whilst minimising impact on surrounding residents.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of the outline permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before (the use hereby permitted is commenced) (before the building(s) is/are occupied) (in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	All material excavated from the site as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall either be disposed outside the site (outlined in red) prior to completion of the development or shall form part of an approved landscaping scheme. Such scheme shall be implemented prior to completion/occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The development shall not be brought into use until turning spaces are provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in line with drawing No. 1057/04 Rev A. These spaces shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 8 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Any gates to be provided on the access to Unit 1 shall be set back a distance of five metres from the edge of carriageway of Barge Lane. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Visibility splays of x = 2.4 and y = 90 dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	Use of domestic garage - no conversion - K25
12	Details of roads, etc, design and construction - J01
13	The gradient of the access shall be a maximum of 1:20 over the first five metres measured from the edge of carriageway, with the balance not to exceed 1:8 in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Notwithstanding provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Developments Order) 1995 (or any Order evoking and reenacting that order) no gates shall be erected on the Kite Hill access without the prior written approval of 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.
15	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved details of visibility improvements to the existing access onto Barge Lane shall be submitted to and approved by and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of 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.
16	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
17	Submission of samples - S03

14.

LBC/22117/D P/01615/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North

Registration Date: 20/08/2003 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Fleming

LBC for retention of 2 non-illuminated menu boards; 1 wall mounted name sign above door (revised description)

18a, St. James Square, Newport, PO301UX

See joint report under A/02327 P/01604/03 (Item No. 3)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The applicant is a Councillor and a member on the Development Control Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken eighteen weeks to the date of the committee meeting and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of application due to negotiations regarding number of signs, Case Officer workload and the need for Committee Decision.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Property is located in central Newport on east side of St James Square and forms part of a grade 2 * listed building. Tables and chairs are positioned on pavement area outside property for use in connection with applicant's cafe business.

RELEVANT HISTORY

A/1570/A – Consent to display adverts granted in July 1986 for a period of 5 years at 48/49 High Street for spot lit projecting sign and non-illuminated fascia letters.

A/1570/B - Consent to display adverts granted in July 1993 at 48/49 High Street for spot lit projecting sign and internally illuminated fascia sign.

A/1570/C - Consent to display adverts granted in June 1995 at 48/49 High Street for illuminated fascia, non-illuminated window signs and replacement projecting sign.

A/1570/D - Consent to display adverts granted in July 2000 at 48/49 High Street for non-illuminated fascia sign and 2 non-illuminated projecting signs.

TCP/22117 - .Consent to change use of ground floor flat to form a shop granted March 1997 at Isle of Wight County Club, St James Square

LBC/22117/A - Consent to make alterations in connection with change of use of ground floor flat to form a shop granted April 1997 at Isle of Wight County Club, St James Square.

TCP/22117/B – Consent to change use of vacant flat to French style café/takeaway granted April 1999 at 18A St James Square.

LBC/22117/C – Consent for 4 no. spotlights and wall mounted name board granted May 1999 at 18A St James Square

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Original submission sought consent for the retention of 3 non-illuminated menu boards; 1 wall mounted name sign above door and 2 spotlights on a Grade 2 star listed building.

TCP/22117/B granted consent to change use of vacant flat to French style café/takeaway which acknowledged the display area within the justification was limited however there would be strict regulations regarding external advertisements.

Following negotiations with the applicant, it has been agreed to remove 1 non-illuminated menu board on the left hand side of the adjacent stone pier and to completely remove the 2 spot lights. 1 wall mounted name sign above the door will remain permanently fixed and the 2 menu boards either side of the doorway will be conditioned for removal outside opening hours.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

B2 Settings of Listed Buildings

D6 Advertisements in Defined Settlements

D1 Standards of Design

B6 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Area

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer advises no Highway implications.

The Council’s Conservation Officer states due to the changes they support the application.

English Heritage has no objection.

Due to the historical nature of this property consultations were carried out with English Heritage who have no objection to this application. However should the Authority be minded to grant consent, under Directions in Environment Circular 14/97, authority is required to notify the Secretary of State before any decision is issued.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

E-mail received objecting on grounds that the boards will look like graffiti plastered all over the square.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering applications are whether signs detract from the appearance of the Listed Building and the character of the area in general.

Under Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 Section 66 (1) states when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the secretary of state shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the buildings or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possess.

Adverts are not illuminated and are of a matt finish which, sympatric to the host property. Applicant has also agreed to the 2 menu boards being conditioned for removal outside opening hours.

The development would not have an affect on the amenities of neighbouring properties and would not detract from the character of the building or the Newport Conservation Area. However I once again reiterate that the authority is required to notify the Secretary of State prior to issuing any decision.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant advertisement consent and Listed Building consent 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 advertisements 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 B2 Setting of a Listed Building, D6 Advertisements in Defined Settlements, B6 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas and D1 Standards of Design.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (subject to consultation with Secretary of State)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Standard condition - B01
2	Standard condition - B02
3	Standard condition - B03
4	Standard condition - B04
5	Standard condition - B05
6	The two menu boards located either side of the entrance door on the St. James Square frontage shall be displayed only when the premises are open to the public unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design), B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

15.

TCPL/22305/H P/02035/03 Parish/Name: Brighstone Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne

Registration Date: 15/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr C Cole

Alterations and extensions to form kitchen, dining areas and disabled persons w.c. facilities

Sun Inn, Hulverstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304EH

See joint report under LBC/22305/J

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Submission of samples - S03
4	The walls/external surfaces of the proposed extension shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a white colour to match the original building unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The doors and door/window frames of the extension shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of rainwater goods should be submitted to and approved by the Local Authority before the development herby is first commenced. Thereafter development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing listed building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a specification of the provision to be made for the storage and disposal of refuse following the commencement of use of the building hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the implementation of such provision for refuse has been completed in full accordance with such an approved specification and such provision shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Before the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The provisions of this scheme shall include physical controls, operation restrictions and administrative control, where appropriate. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	The kitchen shall be fitted with an extract ventilation systems 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 appropriate sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential disamenity 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 and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to commencement of work the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours for deliveries and despatches to the development and once agreed shall be restricted to those hours thereafter. The use will not commence until these hours have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area in general and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	Details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencing work. Once approved installation of approved lighting shall be completed prior to the use hereby permitted is occupied. Thereafter the lighting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details and no additional lighting shall be provided without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 25 parking spaces has been provided within the curtilage of the site in a formal manner that shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Space shall be provided within the site, as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, for the loading, unloading and parking of delivery vehicles and such provision shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable refuse vehicles and fire appliances to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

16.

LBC/22305/J P/02036/03 Parish/Name: Brighstone Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne

Registration Date: 15/10/2003 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr C Cole

Listed Building Consent for alterations and extensions to form kitchen, dining areas and disabled persons w.c. facilities

Sun Inn, Hulverstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304EH

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken eight weeks and one day of the committee meeting and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Property is located in two miles west of Brighstone, situated on the southern side of the Brook to Brighstone road (B3399) which together with a number of properties forms the hamlet of Hulverstone. The site is within the Heritage Coast designation and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Sun Inn is a Grade II Listed Building believed to date from the early C18th. It is constructed of stone rubble colour washed white, beneath a thatched roof. There are two smaller later extensions of white painted brick under slate roofs situated on the northeast and southwest elevations.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCPL/22035/B – Consent granted January 2002 for single storey extension to form kitchen, dining area & w.cs, ancillary living accommodation and an office.

LBC/22305/C – Listed Building Consent granted January 2002 for single storey extension to form kitchen, dining area & w.cs ancillary living accommodation and an office

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought for alterations and extensions to form kitchen, dinning area and disabled persons w.c. facilities.

Previous approval was granted in January 2002 for a single storey extension to form kitchen, dining area & w.cs, ancillary living accommodation, with a floor area of approximately 165sq m including the glazed link attached to the existing building.

This proposal is for alterations and extensions to form kitchen, dining areas and disabled persons w.c. facilities. The proposed overall floor area has reduced to approximately 155sq m although the floor area of the proposed restaurant has increased due to the omission of the managers accommodation in this application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast.

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

S6 All development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

S10 In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas

B1 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings

B2 Settings of Listed Buildings

C2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

C4 Heritage Coast

D1 Standards of Design

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development

P1 Pollution and Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer's comments are that this application has implications affecting the highway and suggest various conditions are imposed should the application be approved.

AONB Officer states that being associated with a small hamlet and in a position that is on the whole related to the existing settlement of the area, they have no strong concerns regarding the potential impact of this development on the landscape. However due to the increase in the buildings footprint, lighting and signage it could lead to an increase of custom and the rural character of the AONB can be quickly compromised and therefore have an urbanising influence.

The Council’s Conservation Team were involved in pre-application advice in respect of the design of the alterations. They comment as follows:

“The design of the submitted scheme appears to be considerably better than the previously approved scheme with the proposed extension visually broken up into various elements of differing height, depth and materials. The proposed alterations to the fabric of the host building are minimal and the location of the extension attempts to create a visually subservient structure, mitigating the impact upon the special character and appearance of the listed building”.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brighstone Parish Council recommended approval providing the following are taken into consideration

The size of the extension is very large and will double the existing size
The blank wall of the kitchen, would prefer a window there
Due to the increase in size, the owners visualise an increase in diners. Maybe only viable through the coach trade.
Access and egress from the car park not easy, could cause congestion and queuing on a dangerous bend, particularly if coaches are involved.
Concerns on the overall visual impact in an AONB
Councillors recognise the need for trade to be increased if business is to remain

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

14 letters received from local residents and objections are summarised as follows:-

Highway safety, how will applicant accommodate additional vehicles, ingress and egress of traffic, possible overspill could cause off street parking, bus stop remarked.
Proposal is not in keeping to the listed property within a AONB due to size, design which is detrimental to appearance, larger dining area, larger extension
Noise and light pollution, extraction, early morning deliveries/rubbish collection, live music
Drainage capability

Island Watch object to this application due to proposal being oversized and unsympathetic to the Listed Building.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer does not raise any significant issues. His only concern is whether car park is large enough to accommodate vehicles generated by the increase in custom.

EVALUATION

Consent is sought for alterations and extensions to form kitchen, dinning area and disabled persons w.c. facilities to this Grade II Listed Building. Therefore, consideration must be given as to whether development affects the listed building or its setting. Due regard needs to be taken into account on the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest which it possess.

Secondly the site is within the Heritage Coast designation and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Consideration needs to be into account on the impact upon these designations.

Regarding the first issue on the impact of the new facility on the listed building, the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) prescribes policies that aim to protect listed buildings and their setting. Section 6 of the UDP (Building Conservation and the Historic Environment), clearly indicates that one of the objectives of this policy is “to protect Listed Buildings against demolition and inappropriate alteration". Policies B1 and B2 expand upon the objective indicating only proposals which protect and enhance the character of Listed Buildings will be approved. Proposals which adversely affect the appearance, settings and/or the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted.

Section 5 of the UDP (Design and Standards for Development), specifies policies that ensure proposals achieve high standards of design. Policy D1 indicates “applications will be expected to show a good quality of design” but also states that applications should “respect the visual integrity of the site…” and should be “sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing.”

In accordance with Policy C2 of the Unitary Development Plan (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), applications should only be approved if they do not have a detrimental impact upon the landscape. Policy C4 of the same section indicates “development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast.

With regard to the principle of the proposed extension, Members should be aware of guidance offered in Planning Policy Guidance 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment). Paragraph 3.13 states “changes that reflect the history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the special interest of some building, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated with a secure and committed long-term ownership, should not be discounted”. But it also continues by saying ….

“Nevertheless, listed buildings do vary greatly in the extent to which they can accommodate change without the loss of special interest”.

In more recent times the Sun Inn, although currently operating, has seen a period when it ceased trading and a previous report has suggested that it has struggled to trade successfully. Investment in the building may help to secure the long term future of the listed building as a Public House, enabling the continuation of its provision of a service to the local community, visitors to the Island and ensuring the upkeep of the building.

The Conservation Team consider this scheme an improvement on the previously approved extension believing the use of sympathetic materials and variation in heights and depths has created a visually subservient structure, mitigating the impact upon the special character and appearance of the listed building.

AONB advises the design is sympathetic and compliments the existing vernacular stone and thatch building and do not feel proposal has any potential impact on the landscape. However, concern has been raised regarding lighting and signage which could have an urbanising influence within the rural community. Commercial business could display some advertisements under deemed consent within The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. However, should consent be required it will be necessary to make a formal advertisement application to display advertisement and can therefore be controlled. In any event , display of signage on the building itself would require Listed Building Consent. Concerning possible lighting the Agent has advised they propose a number of wall mounted lanterns on the elevations of the extensions and low level bollard lighting to the pathways all of which will be controlled by condition.

Highways believe this application will have implications affecting the highway. One issue is the existing access serving the proposed development which, although this does not provide the recommended 90m visibility splay does have a maximum of 54m from a set back distance of 2m when looking in a westerly direction. They also comment that the plans submitted show 29 vehicles are accommodated within the curtilage of the site and at the same time allow for the provision of turning on site.

In accordance with the parking guidelines within the Unitary Development Plan the recommended maximum of vehicular parking spaces should be 25 and it has been suggested that spaces marked 27, 28 and 29 are removed in order to comply with the guidelines. Highways require all these issues to be conditioned.

Regarding the extraction system, after consulting with Environmental Health a condition will be imposed, should the application be approved, to control the noise of the kitchen extraction system and will ensure adequate precautions are taken to minimise the potential for disamenity on noise emissions and odour/fumes. Agent has agreed to this request and confirm that the proposed catering kitchen extract system will discharge into the enclosed yard area in a position which is below eaves level and screened effectively by the yard fence resulting in an unobtrusive solution. The system will also be fitted with suitable grease filters to prevent odours being an issue at neighbouring properties.

Concern was also raised about drainage. Applicant has confirmed the existing foul water drainage system currently consists of a primary septic tank with a secondary overflow tank. This overflow is rarely used at present and it is proposed that this spare capacity will be adequate to deal with any additional loadings. In any event, it may be necessary to install a new system in order to comply with Building Regulations.

With regard to any disturbance caused by deliveries and playing of music at the premises, I am satisfied that these issues can be adequately controlled by conditions of any planning permission.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent 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 proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. The alterations are not considered to adversely affect the special character, appearance or setting of the listed building and in view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies of the Unitary Development Plan, specifically B1 (Alterations and extensions to listed buildings), B2 (Settings of listed buildings), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), C4 (Heritage Coast), D1 (Standards of Design). The proposal is also considered to reflect the guidance contained with Planning Policy Guidance 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and reflects the requirements of section 16 (2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Construction of the extension hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	The walls/external surfaces of the proposed extension shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a white colour to match the original building unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The doors and door/window frames of the extension shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Details of rainwater goods should be submitted to and approved by the Local Authority before the development herby is first commenced. Thereafter, development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing listed building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	The kitchen shall be fitted with an extract ventilation systems 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 appropriate sized and precautions shall be taken to minimise the potential disamenity 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 and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Time limit - listed building - A11
8	Details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencing work. Once approved installation of approved lighting shall be completed prior to the use hereby permitted is occupied. Thereafter the lighting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details and no additional lighting shall be provided without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy B2 (Settings of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

17.

TCP/22738/C P/01518/03 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin North

Registration Date: 30/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Park Resorts

Formation of tenting & touring caravan pitches; associated amenity building & access roads

Lower Hyde Holiday Village, Landguard Road, Shanklin, PO377LL

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application, if determined on 16 December, will have taken 22 weeks to determine, the delay due to negotiations in respect of the limits and layout of the site. This falls outside the BVPI target of thirteen weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an area of approximately three hectares of land immediately adjoining the north west boundary of the Lower Hyde Holiday Complex at Shanklin. The land is presently undeveloped and unused. Part of the land is currently in agricultural use, being leased, it is understood, to an adjoining land owner.

The land is gently undulating but there is a general but gradual fall to the north and west. The southern and eastern boundaries of the site are marked by mature planting which presently forms an effective screen to the existing caravan park. From the site, extensive views are possible to the downs in the west and, towards Arreton and Ashey Downs in the north. In the comparatively short distance to the north is Ninham Farm, a camping and caravanning establishment.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in relation to this tract of land but in January 2003 planning consent was granted for the provision of 41 static caravan bases and associated works, on a piece of land immediately to the north east of the current site, the former western extent of the Lower Hyde Holiday Village.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the change of use and effectively the expansion of Lower Hyde Holiday Park to accommodate approximately 85 touring pitches. Revised plans received show the area to be accessed from the existing access road on the north west side of the spine road running through the camp into that area located immediately adjoining the north west side. It incorporates a new access track throughout the site, effectively in three loops, surrounded and interspersed with proposed landscaping. Originally the submitted plan showed a "finger" of land situated to the south west behind a nearby residential property but this has subsequently been omitted in favour of further piece of land to the north east which produces a more "natural" conclusion.

The scheme also incorporates a new facilities building, originally sited at the western extent of the site but subsequently shown in the revised plan as being located in the lowest part of the site closest to the existing limits. The building is shown to be 9.4 metres by 17 metres comprising toilets and showers, a laundry room and plant room with dishwashing facilities. Constructed in masonry and clad in maintenance free weatherboarding, the building incorporates a cropped roof clad in "Decra" roofing system with an overall height of 5 metres and situated in the lowest part of the site between areas of existing planting and close to the entrance from the existing site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG21 supports tourism as being a vital part of the rural economy.

Policy T5A of the UDP states that new touring caravan and tented camping sites will be permitted providing the sites are located in visually unobtrusive locations and the caravans and tents are removed from the site outside the holiday season. The site is outside the designated development envelope; is outside of the plan notation shown as permanent holiday accommodation site and is in an otherwise unallocated area.

Policy C1 seeks the protection of landscape character stating that development should be for the benefit of the rural economy and any development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area. The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shanklin Town Council object raising concern over the volume of additional traffic generated by this proposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from a local resident, whilst not objecting, raises concern at the possible future use for residential or semi-permanent residential accommodation, or providing camping accommodation thus releasing caravans for permanent residential use and raising concern about the effect on the public right of way and the security of adjoining residents.

One letter of objection from another nearby camping park on the grounds that the development is contrary to Policy T5A. Writer points out that, in supporting text in the UDP sites should be capable of reverting to agricultural use outside the summer tourist season or if a tourist use ceases and this scheme shows roads, landscaping and a new building. Continues by arguing that such accommodation could then be used for permanent accommodation and that there is a declining market for touring caravans and concludes by pointing out precedent if planning permission is granted.

Letter from adjoining property owner raising concerns regarding inadequate provision of toilet facilities and trespass from this site onto writer's property requesting that a security fence be installed.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

This application seeks to consent to change the use and establish a use of the land as a touring camping site, an incursion into open, agricultural land. Bearing in mind the location of Lower Hyde, the fact that it abuts the developed area on its south, south east and eastern side, if it is to expand it can only expand into the open countryside to the west. T5A of the UDP relates directly to provision of touring caravan and tented camping sites and states:

"New touring caravan and tented camping sites will be permitted provided the sites are located in visually unobtrusive locations and the caravans and tents are removed from the site outside the holiday season."

The supporting text does point out that the continued provision of seasonal sites for touring caravans and tents plays an important role in the overall provision of tourist accommodation on the Island and caters for a particular market sector. Whilst such sites should be served by good quality basic facilities it is not considered appropriate that they should become permanent sites for all year static caravans, nor generally provide permanent hard standing facilities or tent bases and should be capable of reverting back to agriculture if the tourist use ceased.

The encroachment of this use in a westerly direction into the adjoining land will inevitably result in a visual impact during the tourist season unless substantial planting and screening takes place to soften the impact. Whilst, during the winter months when the site will not be used, the visual impact of the resultant development would be negligible, it is inevitable that the siting of tents and caravans or tourers will result in a substantial impact in the landscape if not screened.

The ability of the site to be used successfully will entail the installation of infrastructure and the implementation of a landscaping scheme to soften the impact will result in the planting of trees which will prevent the use of the land for agricultural purposes outside of the tourist season and substantially hamper its return to agricultural use in the event that camping ceased.

The key to making this development acceptable is the carrying out of substantial and dense planting which will only become effective over some years and I think it is unlikely that such a site would revert to agricultural use, even in the long term.

The determining factor is, therefore, whether or not the Council wish this accommodation to be provided in order to support the tourist industry and at this successful location.

I consider the development to be acceptable, however, apart from extensive landscaping and planting of trees and shrubs in order to screen the eventually development, I feel the development should be as least intrusive as possible and therefore access tracks should not be in concrete or macadam, they should be installed in gravel finish with no hardstandings on the individual pitches. Accordingly approval is recommended.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Policy T1 in supporting the tourism industry and broadly in line with Policy T5A of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	This permission shall not authorise the use of the land as a site for tented camping or for the stationing of touring caravans except during the period from the 1st March to the 31st October in each year. Reason: The use of the site for the permanent stationing of caravans or tents is not acceptable in the interests of general amenity and does not comply with Policies T1 (Tourism), T9 (Small Scale Tourism Development) and T5A of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The access tracks as shown on the plan hereby approved shall be constructed and finished in gravel and no hardstandings shall be installed on any of the pitches without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before development commences on site a comprehensive landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall specify the position, species, numbers and size of trees and shrubs 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Before the development hereby approved is commenced a security fence, to a height of 2 metres, shall be erected and maintained along the south western boundary of the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property.

18.

TCP/22975/F P/02085/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Pan

Registration Date: 24/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Newport Meeting Room Trust

Retention of lighting

Christian Meeting Room, Buckbury Lane, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a retrospective application where there are a number of issues to be resolved and the local Member, Councillor Coburn, is not willing to deal with the submission under the delegated procedure due to the history of this site and the impact of the lighting on the area in general and nearby properties.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken seven weeks and five days to date. A decision at this meeting would mean that the application would have been dealt with within the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to a recently completed building used as a meeting room for public Christian worship on land to the east of Buckbury Lane, immediately south of its junction with Long Lane. Site is located on the edge of Newport with Buckbury Lane itself being a gravel access road serving established residential development on its western side.

Site falls away from Long Lane with a uniform gradient towards the south west. The building itself has been located in the lower part of the site in the form of a single storey structure. Remaining area of the site is in the form of a landscaped car parking area accessed off a new roadway from Buckbury Lane.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/22975/A - P/01385/99 - Outline planning consent granted for building for use as a meeting room for public Christian worship with access off Buckbury Lane in December 1999. That outline consent was subject to numerous conditions, most significant of which is as follows:

"The meeting room hereby approved shall not open for use before 0600 hours on Sundays and 0900 hours on weekdays including Saturdays or remain open after 2200 hours on any day including Sundays or recognised bank holidays."

TCP/22975/B - P/00828/00 - Approval of reserved matters for meeting room granted in April 2001.

TCP/22975/D - P/00573/03 - An application to retain a car park lighting scheme was refused in June 2003 contrary to Officer's recommendation.

The refused scheme comprised ten 6 metre high galvanised steel columns (one being double headed) offering eleven 150 watt downlight fittings. The downlight fittings are finished in a black epoxy powder coated paint. In addition, there are four other light fittings attached to the building itself. Reasons for refusal were as follows:

1. The visual appearance of the lamp standards as constructed is, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, unacceptable because of their number, height, prominent light fittings, and location in a semi rural area outside the development envelope.

2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development results in unacceptable levels of light spillage in a semi rural area outside the development envelope for Newport.

In refusing permission, Members authorised enforcement action in respect of the unauthorised lighting scheme. Subsequent to that resolution, discussions opened with the applicants in order to overcome the reasons for refusal, and although protracted, they have continued until the submission of this application. With this in mind, it was considered that serving an enforcement notice would not be expedient.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The applicant has been in negotiations with the Council in order to overcome the reasons for refusing the previous application. The revised proposal before Members shows two columns to be totally removed, three closest to Buckbury Lane to be reduced in height from 6 metres to 4 metres and all others to be reduced to 5 metres. It is also proposed to spray the black downlight boxes grey and to plant further landscaping along the Buckbury Lane boundary. Two of the lights adjacent the boundary with Buckbury Lane and one side of the double headed column within the car park would only be illuminated when the overspill car park area is in use. The applicant has also offered to fit a shield to each light fitting in order to further reduce light spillage. The following has been extracted from the agents supporting statement:

"As the building will be in use during the evening hours by regularly up to 150 persons, including up to 50 young children, suitable external lighting is essential to ensure safety with obvious vehicle movements. 20 lux is considered as being the acceptable minimum. However this lighting would only be on during the evening hours when the building is in use.

Normal Evening Use:

Sunday 3.45 - 6.00 pm

Monday 6.45 - 8.00 pm

Tuesday 7.15 - 9.00 pm

Wednesday or

Thursday 7.15 - 9.15 pm

Friday 7.15 - 9.00 pm"

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site lies immediately outside of the development envelope boundary for Newport as identified on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are considered to be:

D1 - Standards of Design

D14 - Light Spillage

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Council's principal Lighting Engineer comments as follows:

"The lanterns installed on the above site are acceptable and meet the Dark Skies At Night criteria, throwing the light downwards. Low level bollards are unsuitable for illuminating areas and are also subject to vandalism."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of three letters of objection from residents of Buckbury Lane together with a further letter and enclosed petition signed by 48 local residents. Points of objection can be summarised as follows:

· The existing level of lighting far exceeds that needed for this type of development.

· Residents question whether the lighting is intended for recreational purposes and in particular children's games.

· Visual impact by reason of excessive number of columns.

· Proposed height reduction would not be a significant improvement.

· Proposed landscaping would only offer long term advantages.

· In order for landscaping to be fully effective, it would need to be of such a height that would in itself present a nuisance.

· Proposed light shields would add to visual intrusion.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Architectural Liaison Officer recognises the need for lighting owing to health and safety requirements. He suggests the use of downlighting subject to this not impacting upon neighbours or shining skywards.

EVALUATION

The main consideration in respect of this latest application is whether the revised proposals are sufficient to overcome the two previous reasons for refusal. To summarise, it was considered that the visual impact of the lights in this semi rural area is unacceptable by reason of their number, height and prominent light fittings. Furthermore, it was felt that the development results in unacceptable levels of light spillage.

This is a semi rural area where background light levels are not particularly high. It is fair to say that a certain degree of lighting is required for safety purposes, but this obviously has to be balanced against the inherent impacts. This report will focus on two main issues. Firstly, the visual impact of the lighting scheme during daylight hours and secondly, the impact of the lights when in operation, particularly in terms of light spillage.

In respect of the first issue, the applicant has confirmed that two of the ten columns are to be removed altogether, the three nearest to the Buckbury Lane boundary are to be reduced in height by 2 metres to 4 metres and the remaining four reduced to 5 metres. It has also been agreed to spray the prominent black light boxes grey in order to match the galvanised finish of the columns.

The three factors referred to in reason 1, namely number, height and light fittings, have all, in my opinion, been addressed and sufficiently amended in order to overcome this reason for refusal.

In terms of the second issue, that of light spillage, Members are advised that Officers carried out a lengthy site visit during evening hours in order to fully assess the light spillage implications of this development. The lights in question have a very similar glow to nearby street lighting. It has already been agreed that the two lights adjacent the Buckbury Lane boundary (closest to residential properties) and a third light facing in that direction are connected to a separate circuit and only used when the overspill car park adjacent the western boundary is utilised. The use of which has occurred once since May, according to the agent. The two light columns adjacent the boundary are also to be reduced in height by 2 metres and the light heads angled further away from nearby residential properties.

From my inspection of the site during evening hours and having regard to the omission of two columns (one of which I believe was shining quite brightly towards nearby properties), the reduction in height and the limited use of three lights nearest to Buckbury Lane, I consider that the impact of the revised scheme would not be of such significance as to substantiate a reason for refusal on grounds of light pollution.

The agent has also offered to fit a shield to each light box in an attempt to accurately direct light to the target area. This has been carefully considered as a further mitigation measure, but its advantages have to be balanced against its visual impact as it would add further to the bulk of these structures. Having regard to other modifications proposed, it is considered that the advantages of the shields would not be that significant and most certainly outweighed by the visual impact that these would have.

It has been suggested that low level bollard type lighting would be more appropriate in visual terms and the new Red Cross Centre in Newport has been cited as an example of such lighting. Firstly, I do not believe that the application site can be compared with an urban site where ambient light levels are much higher. Secondly, I have been advised by the Council's Principal Lighting Engineer that low level bollards are not particularly effective because of their limited height and the fact that they are vulnerable to vandalism.

The applicant has also offered to plant additional landscaping along the western boundary in order to help screen the light columns and the illuminated parts of the car park. This can be controlled by an appropriate condition.

Having regard to the modifications proposed, I consider that the proposed lighting scheme is very close to or even at the minimum level required for the car park. The light heads have been designed to minimise uplighting and disturbance to drivers would be minimal as I do not regard the lighting scheme to be any more intrusive than traditional street lights. Whilst acknowledging that the site is bounded by open countryside to the east and to the south with residential properties to the west, I am of the opinion that, having regard to the proposed modifications, coupled with the limited period of time during which the lights would be operational, the impact on nearby residential properties or the character of the area in general would not be significant and that the previous reasons for refusal have been satisfactorily overcome. With this in mind, I am of the opinion that the latest scheme accords with policy D14 in particular and policies D1 and C1 in general.

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 DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, having regard to the modifications proposed, together with suitable conditions, the revised scheme adequately addresses the previous reasons for refusal and, therefore, does not conflict with development plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The lights hereby approved shall only be used when the meeting room is in use and in any event no later than 30 minutes after closure or 30 minutes before opening of the meeting rooms. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
2	Within three months of the date of this consent, details of screen planting for the western boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved planting shall be completed in accordance with an implementation timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such planting shall be maintained to encourage its establishment of a minimum of five years from when the plants are initially planted. Any trees or significant areas of planting which are removed, die or 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 in the local area to comply with Policies D1 (Standard of Design) and C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Within 28 days of the date of this decision, the lighting scheme shall be modified in accordance with the schedule of modifications attached to and forming part of the decision notice unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter no additional lighting shall be installed at the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The lights identified as E, F and I on plan drawing no. 9723.3 Rev I, attached to and forming part of this decision notice, shall only be used during the periods when the "reinforced grass" overflow parking area is in use and at no other time unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential properties and to comply with Policy D14 (Light Spillage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

19.

TCP/24814/D P/00685/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 04/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M Brackenbury

Removal of compound & portable buildings; construction of industrial units; car parking

Bowcombe Meadows Business Park, Bowcombe Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission which is particularly contentious and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major submission, the processing of which has taken thirty six weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications as the matter was held in abeyance pending submission by the applicant’s agent of further information and the need for consultations in this respect.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to the Bowcombe Meadows Business Park located on south eastern side of Bowcombe Road. The bulk of the developed part of the site, comprising commercial buildings/activities, lies at a lower level to the road with open area to north west rising to the roadside boundary and adjacent residential properties. Site is accessed off Bowcombe Road over driveway which runs alongside part of south western boundary and follows general contours of the land. Boundaries of site are defined, for most part by post and wire fencing and natural growth.

Principle buildings within site are long established and are clad in corrugated iron and fibre cement sheets with natural stone barn under profile metal sheet adjacent part of north eastern boundary. In addition there are a number of smaller buildings, portacabins and compounds scattered around the site. In general, site has quite untidy and cluttered appearance.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Use of site for commercial purposes was first established following grant of planning permission in December 1949 for use of premises for any purpose within Class IV of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1948, i.e. general industrial purposes. Since that time, site has been the subject of numerous applications for use of the site for industrial/commercial purposes, including storage purposes and parking of commercial vehicles. The more recent and relevant applications to current proposal are detailed below.

TCP/07102G/MB/736 - Planning permission for refurbishment and repair of existing industrial buildings conditionally approved February 1993.

TCP/07102/K - P/01800/98 - Planning permission for continued siting of portable buildings and storage containers, continued use of land for builders yard, continued use of land for ancillary parking of vehicles and change of use of barn to general industrial and storage uses conditionally approved April 1999.

TCP/07102/V - P/01917/01 - Planning permission for removal of compounds and construction of 11 industrial units with car park area refused April 2002. The eight reasons for refusal related to the following issues:

· Outside development boundary comprising undesirable intensification of industrial development.

· Outside defined settlement – development not ancillary to existing industrial/commercial development.

· Proposal failed to protect and enhance special quality of landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

· Detrimental to rural character of area.

· Proposal would generate significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway, to detriment of highway safety.

· Access unsatisfactory to serve proposed development by reason of unacceptable visibility and gradient.

· Site within area recorded as being of archaeological interest – submission accompanied by insufficient information to assess importance, nature, location, date and survival of remains.

· Site within ground water protection zone – submission accompanied by insufficient information to demonstrate how contamination of groundwater would be safeguarded against.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for removal of compounds and portable buildings and construction of industrial units with car parking. Proposal involves retention of the principle buildings within the site, including the stone barn adjacent the north eastern boundary and the central unit, and the provision of additional floor space in purpose built units, including two extension to the central building and two freestanding blocks at either end of the stone barn. A circulatory road would be provided around the enlarged central building and parking area provided at bottom of the access road. Submitted plans indicate that additional planting would be carried out in the open field and on existing parking area between the industrial units/car parking area and Bowcombe Road.

Submission was accompanied by document providing points for consideration which is attached to this report as an appendix. In particular, this information indicates that the existing buildings, portacabins/containers and compounds to be removed amount to an area of 2633 square metres and the replacements buildings would have an area of 1370 square metres. Therefore, proposal would result in a reduction in floor space/open storage area amounting to approximately 1263 square metres.

Additional floor space created by proposed buildings/extensions would provide total of 16 units. Submitted plans indicate that buildings would, for most part, be clad to elevations and roof with green profile metal cladding with section of faced brickwork to bottom section of external walls.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located outside of any settlement defined by the development envelopes in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within an area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G1 Development envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 Standards of Design

E1 Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses.

E8 Employment in the Countryside.

C1 Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

P1 Pollution and Development.

P2 Minimise Contamination from Development.

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

AONB Officer commented that in past applications have been submitted for minor proposals at this site, including retrospective applications as a result of enforcement action. He comments that in his role as AONB Officer he has consistently sought to persuade applicants to submit a more comprehensive plan outlining their proposals for the site. Submission of the current application is seen as some success in this respect. However, it has been suggested that a number of the structures used in the calculations to offset existing floor space/storage area against proposed floor space are not authorised by planning permission or are still the subject of enforcement action. Whilst this does not change his view on the application or the desire to see an improvement in the site as a whole, he feels that this should be clarified in order to give a true reflection to the scope and composition of the floor space being ‘traded off’.

The AONB Officer also expressed concern that the application site, as defined in the submission includes the whole cartilage of the site and he would not wish to see the two fields and domestic garden to Bowcombe House included in any calculations of plans for the industrial use of Bowcombe Meadows Business Park. Notwithstanding these concerns, the AONB Officer indicates that he is in support of the proposals to enhance and improve the current site and operations at the site. In particular, he considers that the proposals would be of benefit to the visual impact of the site and would therefore represent a reduction in the impact it has on the AONB. Therefore, he is generally supportive of the proposals but would wish to see the following issues addressed:

· A treatment other than plain blacktop tarmac for the roads on the site. A top dressing of a buff or light material will enable this large area of hard landscaping to better fit in with the rural character of the area.

· There needs to be some form of condition/control on advertising and external lighting on the site to prevent any increase in this potentially urbanising impact.

AONB Officer also questions whether an Article 4 direction for this site would be appropriate in order to secure a planned approach to any further proposals and dissuade from an incremental approach and bring clarity should future enforcement issues arise.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions should application be approved.

County Archaeologist advised that it is highly likely that there are nationally important remains present on the site and that applicant should provide the results of a pre-determination archaeological evaluation in order that the Council can make an informed planning decision about the archaeological impact of this development. Following submission of an Archaeological Evaluation by the applicant’s agent, the County Archaeologist is satisfied that the report fulfils the requirements for the developer to provide the appropriate information to accompany the application and recommends conditions, should application be approved, requiring developer to commission a recognised archaeological contractor to undertake a watching brief during development operations to ensure that archaeological features are adequately recorded.

Environment Agency recommend conditions should application be approved. These conditions seek, for most part, implementation of measures to safeguard against any pollution of groundwater in the area as a result of the industrial processes carried on at the site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

There is no parish or town council for this area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

9 letters received from local residents, together with letter from the Carisbrooke West Community Forum, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Site outside development boundary.

Increase in buildings for industrial purposes would prejudice the rural character of the area, contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

Increase in traffic would have a knock-on effect right along Bowcombe Road. Activities at site have already increased vehicle movements with number of accidents and near misses.

Access unsatisfactory to serve the development.

Forecast of 5% increase in traffic movements not realistic, more likely to be between 25% and 30% and in contravention of Policy TR7 of the UDP.

Area supposed to be an AONB – site is a significant eyesore. Proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape.

Site sits on top of a natural aquifer with inadequate measures for surface water filtering and sewage capacity leading to pollution. Condition of previous planning permission with regard to surface water drainage has not been satisfied.

Concern expressed over potential for introduction of one way system through site and suggestions that Bowcombe Manor Lane is to be used as an ‘in’ and present access to Bowcombe Meadows Business Park to be used as the ‘out’.

Chainlink fence erected on road frontage.

Archaeological remains within application site.

Already a number of planning breaches at the site.

Proposal is a major development involving 50% increase in buildings.

Many of the temporary buildings at the site do not have planning permission and should not be included in the trade off of floor space.

Plans include inaccuracies – no access to Bowcombe House shown, completed boat store not included and no accurate flow of Lukely Brook shown.

Area of land shown for improved access does not belong to applicant.

Proposed usage not accurately defined.

Parking area not included in the floors pace calculations thereby misleading public.

Adverse impact on amenities of nearby residents.

Article 4 Direction should be placed on site.

1 letter received from local resident expressing view that, if properly controlled, proposal could help to improve what is an unpopular site and that the reduction in heavy goods vehicles and noise pollution, if enforced, would be welcomed. It is suggested that following points should be considered:

Proposed parking would be highly visible and planting will take long time to become effective - any interim measures would be welcomed.

Restrictions on overnight parking and leaving vehicles outside units should be applied to prevent site looking an eyesore.

A reduction in speed limit on Bowcombe Road would be welcomed.

Roof of existing unit should be painted to contrast with other buildings.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering current application are whether redevelopment of site is acceptable in principle and whether proposal would detract from the landscape character of the area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Other factors relevant to the consideration of the application are matters relating to impact on nearby residential occupiers, highway considerations and whether current submission overcomes the reasons for refusal of the previous application.

Site has long established use for commercial purposes and in recent years has been the subject of enforcement investigations for various breaches of planning, including siting of portacabins and containers and use of buildings and compounds for unauthorised purposes. A large proportion of the activities at the site attract outside storage of vehicles and materials, particularly within the open compounds around the site. Due to the long established use of the site for commercial purposes, there are only limited restrictions on outside storage of materials and finished products. It is considered that site has untidy appearance which detracts from the landscape character of the area.

Whilst the open compound and storage areas may not strictly be deemed as floor space for the purposes of carrying out a comparison of the existing activities at the site against the proposal, they clearly perform a function, create employment and generate vehicle movements to and from the site. Having regard to the limited restrictions on the use of the area surrounding the existing buildings, I do not consider it unreasonable to include these areas in any calculation of floor space when attempting to demonstrate the level of commercial activity undertaken at the site. The current proposal seeks to consolidate uses to the core area of the site and provides an opportunity to apply restrictions to external storage and generally improve the appearance of the site.

Having regard to the designation of the area as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, I consider that any improvements in the appearance of the site and its impact on the landscape character of the area should be given appropriate weight. In this respect, the previous application sought consent to build industrial units opposite the existing car parking area at the foot of the access road and to provide additional car parking area on part of site which is presently undeveloped. It was considered that this proposal would increase the "footprint" of the site in the designated landscape and would have an adverse impact on the character of the locality. However, it is considered that current proposal provides opportunity to improve the appearance of the site and its impact on the landscape character of the area. In particular, current proposal differs from previous application in that development is concentrated within the core area of the site, the additional parking to be provided on undeveloped land has been omitted and the existing parking would be relocated to the site of the open compounds on the south western side of the site and landscaping carried out in the area presently occupied by the car park. In addition, applicants have previously carried out alterations to the central building within the site, lowering the height of the roof over approximately half of the length of the building and have indicated that it is their intention to lower the remainder of the roof in a similar fashion, thereby reducing the impact of this building in the landscape. It is understood that this work would be undertaken once the new units are constructed on site and occupants within the existing building can be relocated thereby enabling these works to be undertaken.

Whilst the floor space to be replaced includes a number of temporary structures such as portacabins, these are not the subject of temporary planning permission and can therefore be retained indefinitely. An examination of the planning history of the site indicates that the siting of the majority of these structures was authorised following the grant of planning permission in April 1999, at which time, there were already several similar structures on site.

Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan details the categories of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside of defined settlements and includes small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development. The policy also outlines circumstances where such development will not be considered acceptable, including where it would reduce the quality of the environment and landscape or would adversely affect any area, site or feature of archaeological, architectural, ecological, palaeoecological, geological, cultural or historic interest or their settings. In this instance, as previously indicated, I am satisfied that the development will not adversely impact on the landscape character and that, following comments from the County Archaeologist, any special features of archaeological interest can be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions on any planning permission granted. Having regard to these factors and the long established use of the site for commercial purposes, I am satisfied that the development may exceptionally be permitted and would not conflict with the aforementioned policy.

Previous application was refused on grounds that proposal would be likely to generate significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and leaving the public highway to the detriment of highway safety and that the access serving the site was unsatisfactory by reason of unacceptable visibility and gradient. Submitted plans indicate access road would be widened adjacent junction with Bowcombe Road to provide passing area for vehicles. Plans also show visibility splay across frontage of site in a north easterly direction. These works are all shown to be within the red line defining the application site and the applicant's agent has certified that this client owns all of the land to which the application relates. This access road would provide the only means of vehicular access to the site.

Following consideration of the current proposal, Highway Engineer has concluded that proposal is acceptable and recommends appropriate conditions. Similarly, Environment Agency raises no objection to proposal and recommends conditions, should application be approved, thereby overcoming the reason for refusal of the previous application in respect of potential for contamination of a ground water source protection zone.

Residential properties near or adjacent to the site include dwellings to the east and north east of the site, beyond the adjacent farm complex and properties occupying elevated position to north west fronting the main Bowcombe Road. Current application provides opportunity to impose restrictions on operations at the site, including control over operating hours and a requirement, where necessary, that operations are undertaken within the approved buildings with doors and windows shut. Having regard to these factors, and the distances involved between the industrial buildings and neighbouring residential occupiers, I consider that any adverse impact can be minimised.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that proposal involves redevelopment of site having long established use for commercial purposes and the opportunity to consolidate operations and improve the overall appearance of the site to the benefit of the landscape character of the locality. Therefore, it is considered that proposal does not conflict with policies of the Unitary Development Plan. In particular, I am satisfied that current submission has addressed the reason for refusal of the previous application.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Before work commences on site, a scheme for the reduction in height and alterations to the roof line of the existing central building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the works shall be completed in accordance with an agreed timescale. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development hereby approved shall not commence until a programme of work has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such programme of work shall detail the phasing of work, how occupiers of existing units will be decanted from the existing structures into the new buildings and a timescale for alterations to the roof line of the existing central building within the site, as required by condition 3, and removal of temporary buildings/containers as shown on the approved plan (drawing no. 01:1303:20) attached to and forming part of this decision notice. The temporary structures/containers and all debris from demolition work shall be removed in accordance with the agreed scheme and from the area outlined red on the approved plan. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	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 include details of the surface treatment to all roads and parking areas and 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Landscape works implementation - M30
7	All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site by within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to construction of the buildings proceeding beyond damp proof course level or in accordance with a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No article of any description shall be manufactured, assembled, altered, repaired or stored outside the building(s) hereby approved. All processes/activities shall be restricted to the existing/approved buildings and no other part of the site edged red on the approved plans shall be used for any commercial/industrial activity whatsoever. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No outside storage of materials - D05
10	No outside storage of scrap vehicles etc - D06
11	Prior to installation or use of any machinery involving emissions to the atmosphere, details of such emissions and any means of abatement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, such measures shall be implemented in full prior to the equipment being brought into use. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residential occupiers and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	All doors and windows within the buildings shall be kept closed at all times when machinery is in operation or noisy processes carried on therein. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residential occupiers in particular and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site outside the following times 0730 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays, or recognised Bank or Public Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular. or In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	No development shall be commenced on site until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be supported by detailed calculations and shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the agreed details prior to occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved. All surface water from roofs shall be piped to the approved surface water system using sealed downpipes and such system shall not comprise open gulleys. Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to prevent pollution of the water environment, in accordance with Policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	Any facilities for the storage of fuels and chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for a single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and site glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or water course or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution and Development) and P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
16	All foul drainage shall be contained within a sealed and watertight cesspool, fitted with a level warning device to indicate when the tank requires emptying. Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water and/or the Lukely Brook and to comply with Policy P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
17	Site contamination - groundwater protect - T05
18	The method of demolition and construction for the development shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development commencing on site. Reason: The site is in a very sensitive location with respect to ground water, and in order to protect the quality of drinking water supplies and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution and Development) and P2 (Minimise Contamination from Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
19	Site drainage - oil interceptors - U12
20	No soakaway shall be constructed in contaminated ground. Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
21	No sewage or trade effluent (including vehicle wash or vehicle steam cleaning), except site drainage shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system. Inspection manholes shall be provided and clearly identified on all foul and surface water drainage systems. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
22	The existing visibility splay with an x dimension of 4.5 metres and a y dimension of 90 metres shall be maintained unobstructed at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
23	The gradient of the access over the first 10 metres from the edge of the carriageway shall be a maximum of 1 in 50 and shall be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
24	Development shall not commence on site until the modifications (levelling and widening) to the upper section of the service road have been implemented in accordance with details shown on the approved plan (drawing no. 01:1303:20) and details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
25	No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological watching brief work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. To facilitate monitoring of the on-site archaeological works, notification of the start date and appointed archaeological contractor should be given in writing to the address below not less than fourteen 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 Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

20.

TCP/24814/E P/01460/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 22/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Bowcombe Valley Developments Ltd

Siting of 2 portable buildings for use as office accommodation

Bowcombe Meadows Business Park, Bowcombe Road, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The development is associated with a proposal for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site which is the subject of a separate report on this agenda and this matter should be read in conjunction with that proposal. (See report under reference TCP/24814/D - P/00685/03)

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twenty one weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week time limit for determination of planning applications as it was considered appropriate to defer consideration in order to deal with this matter at the same time as the application for redevelopment of the site.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to the Bowcombe Meadows Business Park located on south eastern side of Bowcombe Road. The bulk of the developed part of the site, comprising commercial buildings/activities, lies at a lower level to the road with open area to north west rising to the roadside boundary and adjacent residential properties. Site is accessed off Bowcombe Road over driveway running alongside part of south western boundary, following general contours of the land. Principal buildings within site are long established and clad in corrugated iron and fibre cement sheets with natural stone barn under profile metal sheet roofing adjacent part of north eastern boundary. There are large number of open compounds/storage areas and, in consequence, site has relatively untidy appearance.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/07102G/MB/736 - Planning permission for refurbishment and repair of existing industrial buildings conditionally approved February 1993.

TCP/24814/D - P/000685/03 - Application seeking full planning permission for removal of compounds and portable buildings and construction of industrial units with associated car parking presently unresolved (for consideration at this committee).

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for siting of two portable buildings for use as office accommodation. Submitted plans show buildings located immediately adjacent and to north east of Bowcombe House and to rear of existing office building. At time of recent site inspection, the temporary office accommodation had already been positioned on site.

Letter from applicants accompanying submission explains that they have already relocated their glass fibre moulding company from Swanwick and due to the fact that application for redevelopment of site is still being considered, they found themselves with no tailor made premises. They indicate that they are occupying some of the existing units at the site but that these are far from satisfactory. Therefore, they have found it necessary to position two small portacabins on site, relocated from their former factory on the mainland, until progress has been made on the application for redevelopment of the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

S4 The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G1 Development envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 Standards of Design

E8 Employment in the Countryside.

C1 Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

There are considered to be no highway implications associated with this application.

AONB Officer advises that the overall approach to the impact of this site on the AONB designation has been to work with Development Control Officers and the site owner to seek a whole site plan approach which will lead to an overall improvement to the site and result in an enhancement of the AONB. However, the current application has been submitted subsequent to the application for redevelopment of the site and has caused him some concern. He notes that the applicant is seeking temporary approval only and considers it regrettable that this is once again a retrospective application. He comments that the organisational logistics of relocation of a business must have raised the lack of office accommodation on site at Bowcombe as an issue some time ago. Whilst accepting that application for major redevelopment of site has been subject to a resubmission and is yet to be determined, it would, in his opinion, have been more beneficial to have this business requirement included as part of that application, rather than as a separate proposal.

AONB Officer comments that as a stand alone application he would object in principle to this proposal. In particular, he considers that portacabins are not of sufficient design quality to be supported as a business accommodation solution within the AONB. However, if it is possible to tie temporary permission to these structures to the whole site plan proposals, without prejudicing the determination of the application for redevelopment of the site, he may be able to withdraw his objections. In this respect, he suggests that permission is subject to a condition requiring removal of these temporary structures within 18 months of approval or as soon as the new accommodation becomes available, whichever is the shorter period. Furthermore, as there are no photographs or drawings of the visual impact of the structures in relation to the site, AONB Officer asks that appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken, for example a condition to require the structures to be painted a dark green colour. He considers that, if these measures are addressed, there will be a long term benefit to the AONB through the removal of all temporary structures on site and the provision of a more conducive and organised approach to site management at Bowcombe Meadows.

Environment Agency raises no objection.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

There is no parish or town council for this area.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from local residents residing at the same address objecting to proposal questioning need for additional portable buildings.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factor in considering application is whether siting of portable office accommodation would detract from the amenities and landscape character of the area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The portacabins are situated immediately adjacent existing permanent buildings and are partially screened by adjoining natural growth. The structures are located within and are viewed as part of the overall complex of buildings forming the business park. Therefore, I do not consider that in isolation, these structures have a significant or adverse impact on the landscape character of the area. However, I would agree with the view of the AONB Officer that, having regard to the landscape designation, these buildings are of a substandard design and I would not wish to see their retention for an indefinite period. In this respect, I consider that it would be wholly reasonable to grant permission for a temporary basis and that the removal of these buildings is required within a specified period of time or at such date as the permanent accommodation, forming part of the redevelopment of the site, is constructed and the portacabins become redundant. In addition, should Members be minded to approved application, I consider that permission should be subject to a condition requiring the external surfaces of the portacabins to be painted in a drab green colour.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that retention of the portacabins on a temporary basis will not have a significant or adverse impact on the landscape character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 31 December 2005, on or before which date, or at such time as permanent accommodation is provided on the site as part of a redevelopment scheme, whichever is the sooner, the buildings shall be permanently removed and the land restored to an agreed 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), D1 (Standards of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Within twenty eight days of the date of this permission, the external surfaces of the portacabins shall be painted, and thereafter maintained, in a drab green colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

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

21.

TCP/24833/B P/01903/03 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 07/10/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593

Applicant: N & H Maddocks

Demolition of dwelling, store and greenhouses; construction of detached house and garage

Linnet Mead, Redhill Lane, Sandford, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383ET

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This report is before the Development Control Committee at the request of the Team Leader due to an extant permission approved in August 2003 contrary to officer recommendation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

If determined at this meeting the application will have taken ten weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located on the west side of Redhill Lane a few metres from its junction with the A3020 at Sandford. The site was a former market garden or small holding comprising approximately 1.13 hectares of land which falls gently to the north and is well grown in around its boundaries. The dwelling on site is located fairly close to Redhill Lane, approximately 18 metres back from the highway and comprises a chalet style bungalow constructed in artificial stone under a brown concrete tiled roof. In front of the building is a corrugated steel sheet clad building used last for storage and to the south derelict greenhouses.

The area is predominantly rural, and area of scattered development, a mix of building styles and ages in relatively generous plot sizes. There is a further dwelling to the south known as Valley Cottage, and Redhill Lane then continues into open countryside.

RELEVANT HISTORY

June 2002, extensions approved to existing building comprising a front porch, a rear extension to form a lounge with en-suite bedroom above.

August 2003, demolition of dwelling and store; construction of detached house and garage - approved.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for demolition of dwelling, store and greenhouses; and construction of detached house and garage.

Proposal is for revised siting of dwelling that was approved in August 2003.

Plans show existing dwelling to have a footprint of 87 square metres and floor area of 149 square metres (the extensions approved in 2002 have not been implemented). The plans also show the proposed dwelling as a fairly conventional two storey building under a hipped roof, clad in plain tiles with the first floor also tile hung and a red brick ground floor. A covered way leading to a treble garage located on the southern side. The footprint, including the garage total 215 square metres and a total floor area of 340 square metres. The height of the existing building, to its ridge is 6.2 metres; the height of the proposed building is shown as 8.1 metres.

The dwelling is to be sited 1.5 metres further south than the dwelling currently on site resulting in the proposed garage being sited 15 metres closer to the southern boundary than the original scheme. This means the house will be more visually prominent from the access.

It is intended to utilise the existing access, to demolish the store in front of the building, to demolish two large greenhouses and put in a new driveway to serve the new treble garage with pedestrian access to the front door of the new dwelling. The greenhouses which are in a poor state of repair were not shown to be demolished on the original scheme.

The existing dwelling is not shown to be demolished, this will need to be covered by planning condition if Members are minded to approve application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within the designated AONB and adjoins a Site of Interest to Nature Conservation, situated to the west.

Site is well outside any designated development envelope so policies S1, S4, G1, G2, G5 and H9 apply directly.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved, requesting provision of visibility splays, turning space particularly.

On last application AONB Planning and Information Officer advised that site is within designated area.

"All proposals to redevelop a site within the AONB should attempt to conserve and enhance any special features/characteristics of the site and in the locality and should result in an improvement in terms of impact on the landscape.

In this regard I do not believe that this proposal sufficiently demonstrates that this would be the case. In particular, I have concerns about the proposed height and mass of the replacement dwelling and the resulting impact on the street scene and landscape, I also have concerns about the design and parking layout which does not appear to retain any rural character."

In respect of current application retains original concerns. Accept issue of redevelopment of site and size and design has now been determined and therefore raises no objection to subsequent minor amendment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council recommends approval to change position as they feel the development will enhance and tidy up the site.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

This application seeks revised siting of the house and garage that was approved in August 2003.

It is proposed to demolish an existing dwelling located in an area of countryside and replace it with a new one. If this site were undeveloped, residential development of a new dwelling in this location would be directly contrary to planning policy and the only mitigating factor in this instance is Policy H9 (a) which states:-

"Planning applications for residential development outside the development boundaries of defined settlements will only be permitted if they are for a replacement of similar scale and mass to the existing dwelling"

There are other caveats to Policy H9 relating to agricultural dwellings, conversion of rural buildings, tourism uses, locally affordable housing schemes or infill but none of these apply in this particular case.

The footprint or ground coverage of the existing building is 87 square metres and it is intended to increase this to 215 square metres and that the total accommodation is proposed to be increased from 149 square metres to 340 square metres. In addition the existing building has a ridge height of 6.2 to its gabled ridge and that the proposed dwelling will increase this height to 8.1 metres to its hipped ridge. Accommodation and ground coverage are both more than doubled and the height is substantially increased by almost two metres and when a direct comparison is made between the existing dwelling and that proposed, it is clear that the development does not sit comfortably within the parameters to which Policy H9 (a) relates as it could not be described as being of similar scale and mass to the dwelling which it replaces.

However, it is particularly relevant that the Committee have approved the earlier application, this is a material consideration in the determination of the current application. This determination was contrary to officer recommendation.

Members disagreed with recommendation on basis that site was sufficiently large to accommodate larger property than that which currently exists. Furthermore existing property would not provide sufficient accommodation and in any event proposal would not be seen from outside the site.

Planning conditions included: time limit, materials, removal of permitted development rights, highway conditions.

In terms of visual impact the re-siting of the proposed dwelling will be more visually prominent from the access point than the original scheme. However overriding concern is the fundamental objection that proposal does not fall within parameters of H9 (a).

The scheme does not enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which the site lies and therefore, notwithstanding the very recent decision in August 2003, I cannot support the proposal and recommend refusal accordingly.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

This is a former horticultural unit now lying derelict. The dwelling seems sound but the site is outside any development envelope and therefore normal countryside policies will apply. Policy H9 allows for a one for one replacement, provided the new dwelling is of "similar scale and mass". This clearly is not the case as the site coverage and accommodation provision are more than doubled and the height of the building is proposed to be increased by almost two metres. Despite the fact that an extension has been approved at the rear of the existing building, the proposal is far in excess of that in terms of mass and is therefore a development which is contrary to the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

The revised scheme is not very different in siting to the original. However, the re-siting of the dwelling will be marginally more visually prominent than the original scheme.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The site lies outside the defined development envelope and no justification has been established to show why the proposal should be permitted as acceptable development in the countryside as defined in Policy S1 (Concentrated Within Existing Urban Areas), Policy S4 (Countryside Will Be Protected From Inappropriate Development), Policy G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements) and is therefore contrary to Policy H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) and G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal fails to protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape 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 contrary to Policy S10 (If It Will Conserve or Enhance The Features of Special Character of These Areas) and Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

22.

TCP/25373/A P/01060/03 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 19/09/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Hopkins

Outline for residential development of 12 dwellings & access road, (revised scheme)

land rear of 5-15 Pallance Road with access off, Selman Gardens, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application is a major submission which has proved particularly contentious, raising a number of issues that warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application which will have taken just over twelve weeks to determine if a decision is made this evening; within the BVPI target of thirteen weeks.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to an amalgamation of rear areas of back gardens to five properties numbers 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Pallance Road on the south eastern side of Pallance Road. The site's south eastern boundary forms the rear boundary to those properties with that boundary also abutting in part the access to and the curtilage of property no. 16 Nodes Road which is a detached property set in a backland situation. The remaining part of the south eastern boundary abuts the curtilage of a semi-detached single storey dwelling no. 8 Selman Gardens with the road Selman Gardens being open-ended terminating on the south eastern boundary of the site. The south eastern boundary in the form of a mixture of hedging and fencing. The site contains trees within its south eastern corner, some conifers within the party boundary between 15 and 11 Pallance Road. There is an existing substantial sycamore tree abutting but overhanging the site within the curtilage of no. 16 Nodes Road. The cul-de-sac Selman Gardens forms part of the Cranleigh Gardens development which has a junction off Nodes Road to the northeast.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This site was subject of an outline application for fourteen dwellings with access road submitted in January 2003. The application raised a number of important issues relating to density, failure to provide diversity of dwelling types, smallness of plot sizes in the case of three plots and inadequate information in respect of drainage. Application withdrawn in March 2003.

The Cranleigh Gardens development was granted consent in June 1990 and comprises 37 bungalows with garages with access road / estate roads. For information this site was subject of an appeal following a refusal of an application for forty dwellings dismissed in June 1989. Significantly, however, the Inspector at that time considered that

"A facility should be provided for the extension of the new road system into adjoining backland area to the northwest ...."

was an important consideration. Consequently when the revised application of the lesser density was approved it indicated the open-ended cul-de-sac to achieve the above, now known as Selman Gardens.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks outline consent to develop the land to the northwest of Selman Gardens using the cul-de-sac for access purposes. Application seeks access and siting to be considered at the same time with the submitted plan indicating a layout of a total of twelve dwellings (three single storey and nine two storey dwellings) with the first floor accommodation being within the roofspace i.e. in the form of chalet bungalow style dwellings.

Proposal consists of six semi-detached, three detached, and three terraced dwellings.

Access is in the form of a kerbed access extension of Selman Gardens with a cul-de-sac head in the north eastern area of the overall site (rear of properties 5 and 7 Pallance Road). Layout indicates the loss of the conifer trees and a group of trees in the south western corner.

Each unit is provided with a single parking space either set within the curtilage of individual plots, or, in the case of two plots (5 and 6), in the form of a lay-by to run parallel to the road. Proposal also provides for a private access drive off the new access road to serve no. 15 Pallance Road with further allowance for vehicular access to nos. 5 and 7 Pallance Road off the proposed cul-de-sac head. Dwellings on plots 8 and 9 being those closest to the existing sycamore tree as previously mentioned are a minimum distance of approximately four metres off the crown edge of that tree. Proposal also provides for elements of new tree and hedge planting with there being a relatively small area of open space forming part of the cul-de-sac head within the north western and south eastern area.

In terms of accommodation, proposal provides for eight two bedroom units, two one bedroom units and two three bedroom units.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing, March 2000, with relevant issues as follows:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressure off development of greenfield sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport, jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with thirty units to fifty units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

More than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Local Plan Policies

Site situated within development envelope boundary for Northwood as defined in the Unitary Development Plan.

Relevant local plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate. Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

D3 - Landscaping.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

L10 - Open Spaces in Housing Development.

Reference is also made to the Housing Needs Survey which identifies among other needs a demand for two and three bedroom homes.

The site is located within the Parking Zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. Members are reminded that Zone 3 location does not trigger a requirement for Transport Infrastructure Payments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditional approval covering submission of details of drainage, estate roads, satisfactory provision of visibility and sight lines, means of vehicular access and timing of occupation.

Application has been accompanied by input by Southern Water who confirm that there is foul sewerage capacity although this would involve off-site works in order for foul drainage to be accommodated. In terms of surface water drainage, Southern Water indicate that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate additional surface water flows although surface water could be accommodated within a system south of the development site providing the flow was restricted to five litres per second. Southern Water suggest the alternative would be to dispose of surface water flows via soakaways or any local drainage watercourses subject to interested parties' approval.

Council's Ecology Officer comments as follows:

Currently the site is an open green space with trees surrounded by housing. Such areas invariably attract wildlife which is the source of pleasure and enjoyment to occupants of surrounding properties. It is very likely that some garden birds will be using trees and hedges on or adjacent to the site for nesting. Red squirrels have been reported using the site.

Regarding nesting birds, any scrub clearance or removal of woody species should only take place between the months of August and February, inclusive, to avoid disturbance to nesting birds.

Regarding red squirrels, although they will occasionally use this site it cannot be argued that this is a key site for this species being completely surrounded by housing. I would advise that any planting scheme should incorporate some species suitable for red squirrels so that in the longer term they will continue to be able to visit this site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of thirteen letters of objection, five from Cranleigh Gardens, four from Nodes Road, three from Wyatts Lane and one from Selman Gardens. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Cul-de-sac Selman Gardens regularly used as play area for children, therefore, concern expressed that the additional traffic and extension of this road would create safety implications.

Concern that existing road system, i.e. Cranleigh Gardens and Selman Gardens are inadequate to accept additional traffic caused by this development.

Concern that the proposal does not provide for sufficient parking and would therefore put pressures on parking in the surrounding roads.

Many objectors consider the proposal represents overdevelopment, out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area, referring to the site's semi-rural location.

Intensity of development will likely result in loss of privacy and overlooking in respect of adjoining properties. Property owner who adjoins the south eastern boundary raises particular concern in respect of plots 6 and 7 in terms of their close proximity to that boundary and if approved consideration should be given to boundary treatments to overcome any potential overlooking.

Removal of trees will affect the wildlife habitat which is extensively referred to in letters of objection, with the whole site being considered as a particularly important environmental area for wildlife, with reference to birds, red squirrels etc.

Concern expressed regarding inadequacy of drainage systems in the area to accommodate discharge from this new development.

Adjoining property owner to the southeast makes specific reference to the need to retain and protect the existing sycamore tree and other trees along this boundary.

One objector suggests developer provides traffic calming to the existing road system and provide a specific footpath link to Pallance Road if the scheme is approved.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

Principle

Whilst recognising the concerns being expressed by local residents it would be very difficult to resist the principle of development on this site as it clearly represents an ideal brownfield area of land for development being situated within the development envelope boundary and ensuring a more than reasonable amount of garden still remains for the five existing dwellings. Therefore the principle for developing this land is acceptable in general planning policy terms and I can see no sustainable reason to refuse the application.

Finally, in terms of principle, the fact that the cul-de-sac Selman Gardens was left open-ended was a clear pointer to its potential to be extended into land to the northwest, a provision which was fully supported by an Inspector in June 1989. (See planning history).

Density

Main issue therefore is the appropriateness of the density of development indicated in relation to the site's location and general characteristics of the area. It is important to appreciate that this is a suburban site within an area of particularly low density. A repeat of such low density would be entirely unacceptable under current planning policy guidelines. I would suggest therefore that an average density between the figures of 30 - 50 units per hectare would represent a reasonable compromise and fulfill the aims of PPG3 to make efficient use of urban land. Members will note that the twelve units represents a reduction by two from that on the previous withdrawn application and the resultant density of 43 units per hectare is considered to be acceptable. For information, the density of Cranleigh Gardens is 26.5 units per hectare which would be deemed to be under development under current day density standards.

The question of whether or not a proposal represents overdevelopment is not necessarily related to a specific density but more related to the quality of the development and whether or not the scheme itself functions acceptably both in relationships between dwellings and in relation to affect on adjoining properties.

Resulting from the previous withdrawn application the applicant has now introduced an acceptable range of dwelling types, with there being a predominance of two bedroom units. Such a range of dwelling types assists in widening the range of income groups who will be able to afford the units. It is important to appreciate that development of this type will assist in contributing to the local economy.

Arrangement of Dwellings

Applicants have taken on board the criticisms in respect of the previous withdrawn scheme, not only by varying the range of dwellings but also locating those dwellings within plot sizes which reflect the level of accommodation. Also, the general aspect of each unit within each plot has been carefully considered dependant upon the plot's location relative to the new access road. I am now satisfied that the layout has been more carefully considered to take maximum advantage of the site's shape and should result in a reasonably good quality development.

Impact of Neighbours

It is important to appreciate that although nine of the dwellings will have some first floor accommodation, in every case that first floor accommodation is internally facing with specific avoidance of dormer windows directly overlooking any adjoining gardens. This could also be controlled by condition. In terms of plots 6 and 7 it is appreciated that effectively their rear elevations are very close to the south eastern boundary, however, again careful internal planning of those units along with provision of screen boundary treatment should not result in any overlooking at all in that direction. Essentially, it is important to appreciate that these units are low profile properties reflecting the type of development in the area.

Therefore, whilst accepting that any development on this site, whether it be twelve units or even less, would have an inevitable impact on the environment currently enjoyed by local residents. However, I do not consider that this proposal will have any greater impact than the Cranleigh Gardens/Selman Gardens development had on the existing environment some ten to twelve years ago.

The major difference with this proposal is the slightly higher density and therefore the smaller gardens. With regard to plot sizes generally, Members' attention is drawn to a recent allowance of an appeal where the Inspector stated that the need to achieve high densities will inevitably result in smaller plots and therefore it is simply unrealistic to expect the very low density developments which surround this site to be repeated. Unfortunately smaller plots mean the dwellings are therefore closer to adjoining properties and it is the careful attention to the internal layouts, height and mass of those dwellings which reduces undue impact.

Access/Parking - Traffic Implications

I have already referred to the status of Selman Gardens being open-ended and I would also refer to the Highway Engineer recommending conditions which suggests that he considers that the layout of Cranleigh Gardens, not surprisingly, is capable of accepting additional development without creating hazards to highway users. Selman Gardens itself is a short cul-de-sac serving no more than seven to eight units and has a relatively narrow traffic calmed carriageway width and therefore traffic speeds are likely to be minimal. The new access road to serve the twelve units is similarly designed being curved in its alignment and again relatively narrow to continue the traffic calmed theme.

In terms of parking, parking provision is well within the 75% of guidelines required under Zone 3 policy with each unit being provided with at least one parking space. Whilst there are no guarantees this level of parking provision should not result in any additional pressures for on-street parking, particularly in respect of Selman Gardens or Cranleigh Gardens. It is extremely unlikely that any overflow parking would take place in either of those roads.

Ecology Issues

Concern being expressed regarding impact of this proposal on wildlife habitat with particular reference to loss of trees are noted. A former Council Tree and Landscape Officer confirms my own view that the conifer trees were not particularly good specimens nor are the other trees to be removed in the south western corner. It is accepted however that these trees could well provide some wildlife habitat, with particular reference to red squirrels. The existence of red squirrels on the site should not necessarily prevent development. The proposal itself makes provision for new tree planting which would be likely to exceed the number of trees that exist on the site. Providing the correct species are chosen these trees, along with any further hedgerows and shrub planting, should also provide potential wildlife habitat.

The most important tree from a visual point of view is the large sycamore tree and the applicants have recognised this importance by putting a greater practical distance from the crown edge of that tree than was indicated on the previous withdrawn scheme. In general it is important that Members appreciate that the site is in the form of domestic garden areas with some being overgrown and others being better managed, with one area being in the form of a paddock. As such they cannot be deemed to be special areas and whilst wildlife habitat may occupy these areas it would not be deemed to be sufficient to warrant a resistance to the principle of development on the site, a view supported by the Council's Ecology Officer.

Drainage

Applicants have now provided drainage information and indeed have indicated in some detail the route that the foul drainage will take in order to discharge into a sewer with sufficient capacity. Surface water drainage is less clear although Southern Water has referred to a discharge point to the south which would provide capacity. Applicants, however, are suggesting discharging surface water into the ground by way of a soakaway system which would be in compliance with the SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) which are being strongly recommended by the Environment Agency as a method of putting surface water back into the ground as opposed to discharging it through pipes. Such a system would be dependant upon percolation tests and would need to be carefully designed by a hydro engineer. Given that the application is in outline form I suggest that this matter can be dealt with by condition and should not prevent the approval of the application in principle.

Boundary Treatments

Concerns expressed by neighbouring property owners regarding potential for overlooking are duly noted and in this regard I would suggest a condition both requiring erection of suitable screen fencing, but also retention of and reinforcement of existing hedgerows where they exist and provide suitable screening.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the numerous issues have been addressed in this outline application and that the proposal represents appropriate development on this important brownfield site. The potential for development on this land was recognised as long ago as the early 1990s by the open-ended nature of Selman Gardens and the proposal before Members is merely complying with current day policies which encourage higher densities and more efficient use of the land to take pressures off greenfield sites. The range of dwelling types are considered to be appropriate along with the type of bungalow or chalet bungalow which should reduce impact on neighbouring properties. I therefore consider that the proposals are acceptable and do not conflict with policies contained within the UDP and therefore I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface water disposal system shall indicate connection at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of storm water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Details of the design and construction of the new access road and car parking areas together with details of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall allow for a minimum carriageway width of 4.8 metres. Reason: In compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	The premises shall not be occupied until the access and/or visibility splays as shown on the approved plan have been provided. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until the existing sycamore tree which abuts the south eastern boundary shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier around the crown edge of that tree where it overhangs the application site. 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 in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	The existing hedgerow along the south eastern boundary shall be retained and shall be protected from damage for the duration of the works on site by the erection of a 1.2 metre minimum height chestnut paling fencing. Any parts of the hedgerow removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and in any case by not later than the end of the first available planting season with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing hedge in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The pair of dwellings on plots 1 and 2 shall have no first floor windows facing south westerly direction and the dwellings on plots 6, 7, 8 and 9 shall have no first floor windows facing south easterly direction. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

23.

TCP/25496/A P/01669/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ashey

Registration Date: 23/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr R Bendy

Change of use of reception building to a holiday chalet; construction of 6 holiday chalets & 2 guest houses; enclosed swimming pool & associated facilities; associated ground works & new sewage treatment, (revised scheme)

Ashey Park, Ashey Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Cllr Gauntlett, as he is not prepared to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure due to the contentious nature of various issues.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the 16 December meeting, will have been processed within the thirteen week period allowed for major submissions.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to the land having an area of approximately one hectare situated on the south side of the complex of buildings which constitutes the Ponda Rosa which, in turn, is located on the west side of Ashey Road to the south of Ryde. The complex comprises a restaurant and holiday accommodation and some residential accommodation behind serviced from an access approximately midway in the frontage of the site onto Ashey Road.

The site is relatively flat but is situated slightly below Ashey Road level. The land in question is open with sparse tree and hedge boundaries, the western boundary is somewhat elevated due to the topography of the site and the surrounding area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In 1971 an outline application for a 60 unit motel and further outline submission for 20 unit motel, two semi-detached houses for managerial staff were refused. Subsequent appeals were allowed and 12 motel units were constructed, these being located in the north western corner of the site, immediately adjacent the former manager's accommodation.

In 1990 a detailed application for 48 self-catering holiday homes was refused on grounds of undesirable intensification, poor standard of design, unsatisfactory standard of environment, conflict with policy and insufficient detail.

30 single storey self-catering holiday units on the land subject of the current application was granted consent by the former Borough Council planning committee in August 1993, subject to a planning obligation to ensure no further development on adjoining land. Legal agreement was never completed and the application was subsequently withdrawn.

Lawful Development Certificate issued in respect of 12 former holiday bungalows located to the rear of the complex for use as residences. Certificate was issued on the basis that evidence showed holiday bungalows were used as separate self-contained residential units for at least ten years.

Consent granted in May 1999 for the conversion of the reception building to form 10 holiday lets.

More recently outline application for 30 holiday apartments approved in October 1999 subject to conditions restricting occupancy to holiday accommodation, limiting length of stay of any person to a maximum of six weeks and requiring landscaping and highway requirements.

In March 2002 a two storey building to form guest house on part of the land was approved. Development has subsequently been commenced and is now nearing completion.

In June of this year planning permission was refused for the change of use of reception building to a holiday chalet; for the construction of 6 holiday chalets and two guest houses and for an enclosed swimming pool and associated facilities on grounds of unsatisfactory access due to poor visibility.

In July and August of this year investigations were carried out following reports that infilling of the site had occurred. It was established that soil had been imported to the site which has since been spread and levelled.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application seeks consent for the change of use of the reception building to a holiday chalet; the construction of 6 holiday chalets and 2 guest houses, the erection of an enclosed swimming pool and associated facilities but also includes associated groundworks and a new sewage treatment plant.

Essentially this application is identical to that which was refused in June but the consent is also sought for the retention of the filling of the land and for the retention of the sewage treatment plant. The layout plan shows a short section of access road to be constructed off the southern side of the existing access track serving the site, a short section of approximately 30 metres culminating in a circular turning area serving the various buildings located around it producing an almost courtyard appearance and incorporating parking areas immediately off the access road.

The reception building shown to be converted into a holiday chalet is located immediately adjoining the north side of the access track. It is a two storey rendered building of substantial proportions, having a gross floor area of 266 square metres on two floors. The alterations are mostly internal but a timber feature balcony is shown on the front elevation facing Ashey Road. Inside the building is presently open on both floors with a central spiral staircase accessing first floor. The plan shows the first floor to comprise living area, a dining area and kitchen whilst the conversion would produce four bedrooms, a bathroom, utility room and hallway on the ground floor.

The holiday chalets proposed are single storey, pitched roofs under artificial slate or clay plain tiles and constructed in brickwork with some elevations in natural stone. Accommodation would comprise living room/kitchen, a bathroom and two bedrooms. The plan, form and sizes of the holiday chalets vary. The swimming pool building is shown to be located immediately to the west of the guest house which is nearing completion. The building is again single storey, constructed in facing brick with some elevations in natural stone under a pitched either slate or plain clay tiled roof. Overall the building is shown to be 20.5 metres by 7.5 metres containing a pool, a spa, changing and toilet facilities.

The two guest house buildings are also of different sizes. One, situated in the extreme south western corner, appears to be identical to that which has already been constructed on the site. It is of two storeys with the upper floor contained within the roof space, constructed in masonry, some natural stone elevations but also including rendered finishes with facing brick features. Roofed in clay tiles, incorporating dormer windows, the accommodation comprises five bedrooms, each en-suite, a lounge, a reception/office, a kitchen and dining room. The smaller guest house building, constructed in a similar style is located close to the western boundary, the rear of the site, and produces a lounge, dining room, kitchen, reception/office and owners accommodation on ground floor with five bedrooms on first floor, partly within the roof space.

The sewage treatment plant, proposed to be retained, has already been installed, located adjoining the eastern side of the new access road. The treatment plant is a self-contained biological treatment module of substantial size but which is set into the ground with only the covers visible.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG21 supports tourism which is considered vital to the Island's economy.

The Unitary Development Plan shows the site well outside any designated development envelope in an area of open countryside and situated just to the north of the existing steam railway.

Policy T3 in respect of holiday accommodation applies accepting development of holiday accommodation only where it is associated with an existing permanent accommodation site or where similar serviced accommodation or self-catering accommodation is provided and where the Council is satisfied the development will be retained for holiday use.

Policy C1 seeks to protect landscape character. The site is not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineers recommend conditions if approved having taken account of the improvement in the visibility in this current application but also points out that the visibility falls well short of the standard requirement and, in addition, points out that the current proposal reaches the tolerable limit from a highways point of view and that further development would be strongly resisted.

Environmental Health Officer considers inadequate information presently submitted but despite that recommends conditions if approved.

Environment Agency's comments in respect of previous proposal were to raise no objection, subject to conditions regarding the drainage from parking areas being passed through trapped gulleys. Further clarification of the Agency's views have been sought especially with regard to the change in ground levels and the installation of the treatment plant and these will be reported.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter from the Ashey Park Residents' Association offering no objections to the development, but expressing their concerns over the risk of flooding despite the raising of levels of the ground. They seek the Council's assurance that their properties are safe from flooding so that the remainder of the site can be completed and tidied. One objection from local resident referring to objections raised on previous application on grounds of flooding.

One letter from local resident confirming that he does not object to the development in principle but draws attention to the severe problems in recent years concerning surface water ponding and drainage. He points out that the additional soil on the site is not merely from on site excavation but is imported and draws attention to the consequence of changing ground levels and the effect on drainage and flooding.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer has been consulted and comments in the following terms:

"The relative position of the visitors' cars to their accommodation is very good and designed in such a way that there is good surveillance from all of the accommodation units of all of the parking spaces.

If the site is closed during the year then a lockable barrier should be considered to stop vehicular access. If electrical furniture, e.g. TVs are left in the accommodation then a vehicles is used to remove them as more than one unit is usually attacked at the same time. If the site is not closed then this does not apply but a barrier may be useful to lock areas off when occupancy levels are low.

Security of these sites is based mainly on the individual units which falls outside of the planning considerations."

EVALUATION

Essentially this application is identical to that which was refused solely on grounds of inadequate access in June. The only different factors introduced at this stage are those concerning the importation of soil and that retrospective consent is sought for the installation and retention of the sewage treatment plant.

Determining factors are therefore considered to turn on those concerning the highway issues and, in effect, if the previous objection has been adequately countered; if the importation of soil is visually intrusive culminating in changes in the shape of the ground; if the importation of the soil adversely affects land drainage and, lastly, if the installation of the replacement sewage treatment plant is acceptable.

The principle of development of this site, despite the fact that the land is well outside any designated development envelope and in an area of countryside has been carefully considered. So too has the planning history and the fact that there is still a valid planning permission for continued development of the site with tourist/holiday accommodation. However, the completion of this site with high quality accommodation is considered to be acceptable and logical subject to adequate safeguards.

Following the previous refusal the highway issue has been addressed, further land has been included within the site to ensure the retention of an improved visibility splay and, following careful consideration by the Highway Engineers conditions are recommended. In principle, bearing in mind the previous application was refused solely on highway grounds which have now been satisfactorily addressed and the fact that the development proposed is considered acceptable in design terms, I consider the principle of development as submitted to be satisfactory.

The new sewage treatment plant is of proprietary manufacture, designed to cater for the capacity envisaged. Such a self-contained sewage treatment plant is designed to be effective and its provision is as a result of pressure from the housing and drainage department to overcome an identified pollution problem.

This leaves the issue of importation of material and the possible effects of the development on flooding of the area. There is no doubt that flooding of this site has occurred in the past and the issues to be addressed are whether the importation of material and the resultant raising of ground level together with the proposed development will exacerbate the flooding potential and whether the steps taken by the developer are adequate.

As part of the submission and the development, a flood risk assessment has been carried out by an engineer. This assessment has been examined by the Environment Agency despite the fact that the site is not within a recognised flood plain. The Agency considers that the investigation carried out by the engineer is satisfactory following their examination of it in February 2002. Their comments in respect of the continued development of this site remain as raising no objection subject to anti-pollution controls on surface water drainage.

The engineer who carried out the original flooding assessment, reassessed the site in a new report dated July 2003 as a further flooding of the site had occurred in November 2002. He concluded that the reported flooding incident is an isolated one with an identifiable cause, being a blockage in a siphon (culvert) probably exacerbated by the condition of the water course at the time but which has now been cleared. In summary he did not consider that the site is subject to a significant risk of flooding with a low probability of return.

I have no record of site levels or contours prior to the tipping which has occurred. I can only judge the suitability in visual terms of the site in its present condition. The site levels and contours are very flat and in visual terms I cannot say that the tipping which has occurred on the land is visually intrusive, in fact the levels on site appear as natural. The spot level survey which accompanied the application still shows there to be a gentle fall across the site from the road in a southerly direction to the stream marking the southern boundary of the site and therefore consequently, surface water will naturally drain in that direction to the stream.

In summary the highway issue which culminated in a refusal of the last application has been overcome, the flooding issue of the site has been investigated by qualified engineer whose report has been examined and ratified by the Environment Agency and the development, in principle and in detail, is considered satisfactory. I can see no reason to withhold permission and, subject to appropriate conditions, recommend approval.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and attached appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the evaluation section above, the development of the site for tourism purposes is considered appropriate and consistent with tourism policies, countryside preservation policies and transport policies whilst taking account of Policies G6 regarding flooding of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Apart from the owner's/manager's accommodation shown to be included in buildings G and E on ground floor of those respective units the accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied other than as holiday accommodation. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	The occupation of the six holiday chalets hereby approved shall be limited to holiday use only and they shall not be occupied by any person, a family, or a group of persons, for a period in total exceeding six weeks in any rolling year without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The holiday chalets and the two guest houses and swimming pool and facilities building hereby approved shall be retained together as one property and none shall be sold or leased separately without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The use of the site for all year round residential occupation would conflict with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of 21 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	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 hatched on drawing no. 2003/1512/02 - A 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	The old sewage treatment plant/tank, located in the south western corner of the site shall be removed in its entirety before any of the accommodation hereby approved is occupied. Reason: To reduce the discharge of fluids into the surrounding land which could have an adverse effect on the land stability of the site or adjacent area to the detriment of any occupiers of those areas and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution and Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	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. Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

24.

TCP/25536 P/00701/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 15/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: C Jago Esq

Detached house (revised proposal - reduced length, reduced height) (re-advertised application)

22 Shore Road, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318LD

This application was subject of a site inspection which Members carried out on 14 November 2003. However, because of the late submission of more accurate plans Members on advice decided not to consider the application at that time. In order to give immediate neighbouring properties an opportunity to comment on the revised accurate plans the application was deferred for consideration until this meeting (16 December 2003).

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject to a number of representations from local residents, Parish Council and local Councillor, Cllr. A Mundy, and raises a number of issues including design considerations and therefore Committee determination is appropriate.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application which has taken thirty four weeks to process. It has taken more than eight weeks for determination of planning applications because of the extensive level of negotiation, readvertisement and the need for Committee determination which has included Committee site visit.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Sloping site situated on the north eastern side of Shore Road, currently accommodating an elongated split level dwelling measuring approximately 15 metres in length by 5.5 metres in width sited off the south eastern boundary. Existing building, as with other buildings which immediately abut and adjoin to the rear, are of traditional style of seaside architecture being mainly small in size with timber clad finishes under shallow pitched roofs, having in general a holiday chalet type appearance. The existing building has a maximum height of 4.2 metres (ground to ridge) at its north eastern end reducing to 2.4 metres where it fronts onto Shore Road.

Existing property stands between holiday style chalet buildings with no.18 Shore Road abutting to the south east and no.26 Shore Road abutting to the north west. There are also similar chalet properties which abut the lower half of the plot with no.20 abutting the south eastern boundary and no.28 abutting the north western boundary. Adjoining the rear boundary is property no.24 Shore Road which sits at the base of the valley beyond which is a stream, known as the Jordan stream. Beyond the stream is an area used for dinghy parking by Gurnard Sailing Club which attaches to Gurnard Green.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Consent sought for replacement dwelling located in a similar location but measuring 14.5 metres by maximum width of 6.3 metres, reducing to 5.5 metres at the south western end where it faces Shore Road. The south eastern elevation sits directly on the south eastern boundary over a length of 9.9 metres, however where it directly abuts property no.18 Shore Road, proposed dwelling is set off that boundary by approximately 0.9 metres. In terms of its relationship with the north western boundary where it abuts no.26 Shore Road, the proposed property is set a distance of 1.1 metres measured off that adjoining property. In terms of height the property is single storey in height to the Shore Road frontage and two storey in height to the rear. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 6.95 metres at its north eastern end (rear) reducing to 4.85 metres at its south western end where it fronts onto Shore Road.

Dwelling to be finished in stained rough sawn timber cladding under painted galvanised steel sheeted shallow pitched roof. Dwelling to provide three bedroom accommodation on the lower floor level with living, kitchen etc accommodation at upper floor level. Dwelling also to be provided with a small area of decking on the lower floor with a substantial area of decking across the whole width of the proposed dwelling to the rear end with a smaller area of decking to the front. Dwelling is approximately 0.6 metres shorter than the length of the existing dwelling but is approximately 0.7 metres wider than the existing dwelling.

Additional comments have been submitted by architects acting on behalf of applicant as follows:

"When the application was first lodged there were a number of complaints from people living in the area. Responding to these complaints and suggestions from the Planning Officer, the proposals have been changed or amended so that the proposal is now:

· Reduced in overall size.

· Lower in overall height.

· No closer to its neighbours than the existing building.

· Creates no additional overlooking.

· Sits comfortably in the street scape.

We have tried hard to produce a scheme which has the same feel as the surrounding collection of close built buildings but which provides decent family accommodation."

Members are advised that the accuracy of the submitted plans in terms of height of adjoining properties was questioned by neighbouring residents and physical checks were carried out by my Officers which indicated some discrepancies. These potential inaccuracies were conveyed to the applicant's architects who then carried out their own site measurements of adjoining properties. This has resulted in the adjoining property no. 18 being indicated lower than previously shown and the property no. 26 being indicated as being higher than previously shown. Obviously the plans have now been revised accordingly in terms of the street scene plan.

In detail the height relationship in respect of the proposed property with the existing properties are as follows:

In relation to the existing ridge height of no. 18 the ridge height of the proposed property will be 0.1 metre (100 mm) lower than that adjoining ridge height.

In terms of the property no. 26 Shore Road the ridge height of the proposed dwelling will be 0.75 metre higher than that adjoining property.

Dimensions have been indicated on the submitted plans.

A second minor revision is the removal of a small southwest facing kitchen window within the upper floor plan which had the potential to create direct overlooking of the neighbouring property.

Further letter received from applicant's architect which confirms the taking of accurate measurements on site and drawing a number of points to the attention of Committee as follows:

Difficulties in surveying accurately the adjoining properties without causing undue disturbance, however, he accepts that any discrepancies will have caused concern and suspicion. The resultant accurate plans in his opinion indicate any differences as being very small in terms of the overall massing of the relative buildings. Architect recognises that the distribution of windows and doors in the existing no. 18 property were inaccurate for which he apologises.

Confirmation of the removal of the kitchen window as previously described.

Confirmation that dimensions taken on site have been indicated on the submitted revised plans and therefore a check can be made subsequently to confirm compliance with the approved drawings.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan are considered to be:

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

G7 - Unstable Land

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards of Development within the Site

H5 - Infill Development

Site is within the development envelope as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer raises no comment (no change is circumstances, existing car parking space to be retained).

Environment Agency raises no objection.

Application was subject of a site report by a structural engineer which has been vetted by the Council's consulting geotechnical engineer who is of the opinion that "the recommended foundations, i.e. the whole building, should be piles taken down at least 8 metres plus the depth required to provide adequate bearing resistance and with low friction sleeving over the top 8 metres, should fulfill the requirements of PPG14 provided that the piles are substantial and designed to withstand some lateral movement of the ground, i.e. are robust, of reasonable diameter say a minimum 450 mm and are fully reinforced."

Engineer suggests that if the base of the proposed building is lower than the adjacent buildings then the foundation should be investigated and a construction method developed to ensure support throughout the construction period.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Both the initial proposal and the readvertised revised proposal have been before the Town Council and on both occasions the Council objected to the proposal. Their comments in respect of the revised proposal are quoted as follows:

That the Parish Council strongly objects to the application on the grounds that the proposal amounts to overdevelopment of the site.

That there are land stability concerns in the area.

That the proposals are out of character with the surrounding dwellings and would result in a serious loss of neighbouring amenities.

The Parish Council also comments that the plans again seem not to accurately portray the proposed development and little seems to have been changed to effectively address the concerns and objections previously made in May. The Parish Council, therefore, is strongly opposed to the proposed development.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Initial application attracted nine letters of objection, eight from residents of Shore Road and one from resident of The Avenue, along with objection from local Councillor and Isle of Wight Society. Following readvertisement of the application a total of eleven letters of objection received, nine from residents of Shore Road, one each from resident of Solent View Road and The Avenue and a letter from Isle of Wight Society. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Dwelling too large and will appear cramped, therefore represents overdevelopment.

Dwelling fails to respect slope of site and will appear excessively massive when viewed from the north east (Gurnard Green).

Generally it is considered that the size of the dwelling is out of keeping with the prevailing character of small scale dwellings in the area.

Concern expressed that ground conditions will be incapable of supporting the development and that the foundations will unduly impact on neighbouring properties.

Proposals could cause flooding problems.

Proposal may have an adverse impact on existing drainage systems.

Proposal will result in loss of privacy and light with reference to overlooking and from the proposed balcony in respect of the immediately adjoining dwellings, particularly the adjacent dwellings either side of the plot.

Concern that the height of the dwelling where it is being built off the south eastern boundary which will have an over dominant effect on the adjoining property no.18 Shore Road.

Concern that the building is likely to encroach beyond the boundaries of the plot.

Some objectors questions the accuracy of the plans.

Some objectors refer to applicant's contention that the proposal will not result in loss of trees.

Construction works will cause substantial disturbance due to the constraints of the size of the site and its narrowness.

An objector suggests that the proposal is contrary to the UDP policies D1, H5, G4 and G7.

The revised proposal which was readvertised set the building a distance of 0.9 metres off the south eastern boundary where it directly abutted the dwelling no.18 Shore Road. However, applicant indicated the building to be directly abutting the property on the adjoining boundary no.26 Shore Road. This revised siting attracted a specific letter of objection from the owner of that property expressing concerns relating to fire hazards, inability to maintain the adjoining property.

Copy of a letter has been received from one of adjoining property owners which was circulated to all Members of the Development Control Committee. This letter raises no new issues which have not already been covered by the report.

A letter has also been received from the Local Member, Councillor A Mundy, suggesting that the problems with regard to access to adjoining property could be solved by reducing the width of the proposed building. This would have the effect of taking the property away from the adjacent properties on either side and give some symmetry to the building.

Prior to the Members' inspection of the site a letter was received from adjacent property owner to the southeast which raised a number of issues which are summarised as follows:

Concerned that the illustrative elevations did not accurately represent an on-site situation with particular reference to the impact that inaccuracy may have in respect of the rear elevation.

Concern that the formal plan submitted does not show the full and correct extent of adjoining properties and therefore a full judgement cannot be made.

Emphasis placed on the importance of the impact of the rear elevation which is highly visible from the public areas to the northeast.

Windows shown on plan serving kitchen and bunk room had not been shown on the front elevation.

One neighbouring property owner who abuts the rear of the site suggests there may be drainage problems.

Concern that the closeness of the walls to adjoining properties may cause fire hazard problems.

Following consultation with the two neighbouring properties which abut the site one letter has been received which essentially does not raise any new issues, continuing to reiterate issues relating to excessive mass, potential foundation problems, disturbance to neighbours and, more significantly in this case, loss of light to existing windows.

Any comments received from the second neighbour who was consulted will obviously be reported to Members accordingly.

Further letter received from local resident reiterating the points of representations already raised.

EVALUATION

Firstly it is important to appreciate that in terms of the relationship with the two adjacent properties, nos. 18 and 26 Shore Road, the proposed dwelling now being considered indicates a gap either side of those two properties. This is contrary to the initial and revised proposal which showed the proposed dwelling either directly abutting no.18 and in the case of the revised proposal directly abutting no.26 Shore Road. The 0.9 metre gap now being indicated adjacent no.18 clearly assists in providing the passage of light to the existing bay window which is located directly on the party boundary. Similarly the 1.1 metre gap now being indicated both from the curtilage and particularly the property itself no.26 Shore Road, removes the immediate concerns of the owner of that property.

It is important, however, to stress that both adjoining property owners continue to express concerns regarding the overall height and mass of the property emphasising its adverse effect on the general pattern and development in the area.

Members will note that this application has been the subject of a number of design adjustments which applicant considers addresses some of the immediate concerns of neighbouring properties, however, I am of the view that this is as far as the applicant is willing to go and considers that the overall scale of the dwelling, although larger than the existing, will sit comfortably on this site. This, I suggest, is the overriding issue which Members will need to consider carefully.

Two factors which Members need to consider is the comparison of the proposed dwelling to the existing and whether the increase in scale, with reference to height and mass, is acceptable. With regard to the later issue, the resultant impact of the proposed dwelling on the general pattern of development in the area when viewed particularly from Shore Road and from the northern area Gurnard Green etc is particularly important.

Whilst recognising the subjective nature of this particular issue I am of the view that the size of the dwelling is not excessive in this case and it sits on a plot which is certainly larger than most in the area and because of its location I do not consider it will be excessively dominant.

I certainly consider that the reduction in width referred to above has provided that element of space, particularly when viewed from Shore Road, and has overcome any potential for this proposal to appear cramped. I also consider that when viewed from the Green it sits reasonably comfortably between the various properties which surround.

With regard to immediate effect on the neighbouring property, with particular reference to the adjoining property no.18 Shore Road, it is important to appreciate that the existing property stands directly on the boundary. Therefore whilst there will be an increase in height there will be no change in the situation apart from the effect that the increase in height may have on that adjoining property.

In terms of any potential overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly in respect of proposed balconies, it is noted from the site inspection that there are a number of balconies attached to adjoining properties, all of which generally overlook one another. This apart, however, I consider any potential overlooking from the proposed balconies/decking to this dwelling could easily be overcome by the imposition of a condition requiring screening to the sides of those features. I would suggest an appropriate condition if Members are mindful to approve the application.

With regard to other issues, the question of ground stability has been adequately addressed by the submission of an appropriate report and Members will note the comments of the Council's Consulting Engineer.

With regard to any flooding effect, the Environment Agency has raised no objection and in terms of drainage this proposal will merely discharge into the drainage which serves the existing dwellings.

The applicant has deliberately designed the dwelling in terms of material finishes to pick up on the pattern of development in the area in terms of the seaside architectural appearance.

Whilst I fully acknowledge the concerns being expressed by local residents I consider the dwelling for which consent is now being sought is acceptable and while having an impact on the area I do not consider that impact will be sufficiently excessive to justify a recommendation for refusal. I therefore do not consider there are any reasonable planning objections to this proposal.

Issues raised by the Local Member have been addressed in the revised plans submitted by the applicants and are covered in this report.

The concerns in respect of the kitchen window referred to in neighbouring property owner's letter has been addressed by its removal thus reducing any potential for direct overlooking of that neighbouring property. With regard to potential fire spread and drainage issues, these will be dealt with under the auspices of the Building Regulations. Any drainage problems in this area relate to private drains and Southern Water would have no knowledge of any problems in this respect.

Inaccuracies shown on the submitted plans are clearly regrettable but applicant has addressed these issues with the differences being fairly marginal and not resulting in any change to the recommendation. The main issue continues to be mass and height of the proposed dwelling and whether or not it exceeds that which would be acceptable in this area of Gurnard that consists of a random mixture of different sizes and height dwellings informally dispersed. I continue to be of the view that although the resultant replacement dwelling is of an increased mass and height when compared with the existing building on site I do not consider it has reached an unacceptable mass and will sit comfortably within an area characterised by buildings of varying masses, heights and appearances.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the negotiations and design adjustments have resulted in a dwelling which will sit comfortably within the essentially random nature of the development in the area and will not adversely impact on the general character of the area. Impact on neighbouring properties has now been addressed either by the adjustments themselves or by appropriate condition and concerns regarding ground conditions and foundations have been fully addressed. I am satisfied, therefore, that the development to this site as indicated is acceptable and that the impact on neighbouring properties will not be such as to warrant a refusal of the application.

1. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (REVISED PLANS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development 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 in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and reenacting that order, with or without modification, no windows shall be constructed in the south east elevation. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining property and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved a 1.8 m high screen of opaque finish shall be erected on the south east facing and north west facing sides of the two deck areas on the rear elevation as indicated on the applicant's drawing no. 1000-020 revision E. Such screen shall be of agreed design and shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the adjoining residential properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to the applicant reminding him of his responsibility in respect of the Party Wall Act 1996 which requires the adjoining owners to be notified of intentions with regard to party walls and party boundaries. Also applicants ensure site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance to neighbouring property owners and that the foundation works are supervised by an appropriate qualified engineer preferably the engineer who prepared the report.

25.

TCP/25671/A P/01562/03 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood

Registration Date: 26/11/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Ms R Peyton & Miss E Walsh

Demolition of garage; outline for 7 dwellings, formation of vehicular access and access drive (revised access arrangement) (readvertised application)

land at and rear of 52 and 54, Wyatts Lane, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application subject of a considerable number of representations from local residents, residents groups and local Member (Cllr Mazillius) which raise a number of issues including highway and density matters and therefore Committee determination is considered appropriate.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This minor application has taken fourteen weeks to process.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site relates to the extensive curtilage of detached properties nos. 52 and 54 Wyatts Lane, being on the western side of that road and approximately 60 metres south of the junction of Wyatts Lane with Harry Cheek Gardens. The area is characterised by a mixture of modern and more established residential development in the form of detached and semi-detached properties. The development Harry Cheek Gardens is a relatively modern development of single storey detached and linked single storey dwellings constructed in the 80s. The only difference in terms of the residential character of the area is that diagonally opposite the site to the south east is Northwood Scout Hut.

Although application relates to the entire curtilage of both houses, the area on which development is proposed relates to the rear with those areas being characterised by informal landscaped gardens, particularly the property no. 54 which includes a number of large mature trees.

The property no. 52 is an older established two storey cottage building, whilst property no. 54 is a more substantial detached thatched cottage which is a Grade II Listed Building.

Northern boundary being in the main in the form of established hedgerows with intermittent fencing separates the site from the Harry Cheek Gardens development and in particular bungalow properties 11, 9, 3 and 1 Harry Cheek Gardens. The remaining south eastern and southern boundaries are in the form of a curved boundary immediately abutting a public footpath (CS14) beyond which in part is an open field. This particular boundary is heavily wooded, comprising mature oak and ash trees with holly and blackthorn. The area of the site to be developed is 0.2 hectares. This area represents slightly in excess of half the overall curtilage of the two properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of the overall site, however previous outline proposal to develop the curtilage of no.52 Wyatts Lane separate from no.54 was withdrawn.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline consent is sought for the residential development of the rear half of the overall curtilages of 52 and 54 Wyatts Lane with siting and means of access to be considered at the same time. Submitted proposals indicate a terrace of three two storey houses having a north south aspect and located close to the southern boundary. Second terrace of two houses and a single storey dwelling within the north western corner of the site with the single storey dwelling being adjacent the northern boundary and a detached single storey dwelling more centrally located abutting the northern boundary.

Access has been indicated to be off Wyatts Lane located between the gap between the two properties 52 and 54 Wyatts Lane. Access proposals indicate a 4 metre carriageway with a 0.2 metre margin where it abuts no. 54 Wyatts Lane. New access road to serve a total of 10 parking spaces with turning head.

Proposal will result in some loss of trees, however the alignment of the road ensures retention of the significant mature trees on the site and proposal has deliberately indicated the rear boundary to the properties in the southern and south eastern region of the site to be set away from the boundary with the public footpath ensuring that wooded boundary is kept outside any residential ownership.

Both the two storey houses and single storey dwellings to provide two bedroom accommodation. The two single storey dwellings which are abutting the northern boundary are set a distance of 3 metres off that boundary.

In terms of the visibility splay, applicant on the revised plan has now indicated an x measurement of 3.6 metres by y measurement of 23 metres in a southerly direction and a y measurement of 15 metres in a northerly direction. As such this visibility splay covers the whole of the frontage of 52 and 54 Wyatts Lane and the applicant indicates that the area within that visibility splay to be reduced to level grass verge. Finally the proposal indicates a strategically placed bollard at the extremes of each of the y measurements and also a bollard on the southern side of the entrance to the public right of way with all bollards obviously being on the western side of Wyatts Lane. Bollards are required to indicate the extent of the visibility splay. The negotiations with the Highway Engineer and the applicant has also resulted in an agreement for a financial contribution of £15,000 to be made towards an overall provision of traffic calming within Wyatts Lane.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000 with relevant issues as follows:

Need to address housing requirements for the whole community by provision of wider housing opportunity and choice including better mix in size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield site.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping, etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with 30 units to 50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density.

More than 1.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Relevant local planning policies are as follows:

Strategic policies S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 - Standards of Design

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site

D3 - Landscaping

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

Site itself is within the development envelope boundary for Northwood as defined on the Unitary Development Plan. The development envelope boundary not only encompasses the application site but also includes land both to the south and south east of the public footpath which abuts the south eastern and southern boundary of the application site.

Reference is also made to the recent Housing Needs Survey which indicates a significant demand for one and two bedroom dwellings either in the form of mixture of flats and/or narrow fronted terraced houses.

Site is located within the parking zone 3 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates a maximum of 0 - 75% parking provision for this site. The guideline figure is a parking space per bedroom. The level of development, i.e. seven units would not trigger a requirement for transport infrastructure payments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer who initially recommended refusal for the application on grounds of inadequate visibility is now recommending approval having negotiated the visibility splay as described and subject to requiring a financial contribution towards traffic calming in Wyatts Lane. He now recommends conditional approval which includes a visibility and sight line condition requiring all boundary treatments to be lowered to a maximum of one metre in height above existing road level. Highway Engineer also requires the following:

A contribution of £15,000 will be required to carry out a traffic management/safety scheme to reduce traffic speeds in the area of the development. The available "y" distance is below the minimum required by DMR and B Volume 6 TD72/45. The contribution will pay towards traffic management scheme along Wyatts Lane that will reduce speeds and therefore mitigate the reduced visibility. The implementation of the safety scheme has the support of the engineering services traffic section.

Rights of Way Officer requests consideration be given to requiring any developer to contribute to upgrading the surface of the adjacent public footpath CS14 on the grounds that such improvements would not only benefit the community as a whole but also future occupiers of the development.

Council's Ecology Officer makes the following observations:

The site supports a number of fine mature trees together with areas of scrubby woodland at the furthest end of the garden. In addition a dense woody boundary adjoins the public footpath CS14 which leads into open countryside.

The wooded southern boundary comprises mature oak and ash trees with holly, blackthorn and hazel. Some of the trees are growing on an old bank and the presence of butcher's broom here suggests that this may well be an old boundary bank. The trackway is clearly indicated on the 1793 survey for the first edition Ordnance Survey map. This wooded boundary forms a clear demarcation from the built areas of Northwood and the open countryside. It is an important landscape feature as well as a valuable wildlife corridor.

The preservation of this wooded boundary is important and can only be assured if it is out with the curtilages of any new approved development. I would advise that the gardens of the six proposed properties adjoining this boundary should be redrawn to exclude this wooded corridor.

There are some other good quality trees on the site and these should be retained and protected.

Comments of Southern Water have been received which confirms that there is a combined sewer within Wyatts Lane and they would not want to see any more surface water connected into this sewer as it is only 150 mm in diameter. Southern Water emphasise that foul drainage must not be connected to surface water sewers and therefore the developer needs to find an alterative connection point for the foul drainage. They refer to the existence of a foul sewer to the north of the site running to the west. Southern Water also confirm existence of surface water in Wyatts Lane which runs down the lane (CS14) to the south.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Initial proposal subject of fifteen letters of objection from in the main local residents including seven letters from residents of Harry Cheek Gardens, two from residents in Wyatts Lane and letters from residents of Pallance Road, Upper Moorgreen Road, Nodes Road, Oxford Street and Northwood Residents' Association along with a letter of objection from the local Councillor. Following the advertisement of the application in respect of the revised access arrangements a further five letters received from residents of Harry Cheek Gardens and one each from residents of Nodes Road and Wyatts Lane. Summary of the points raised is as follows:

Wyatts Lane has no footpath provision and is particularly narrow at this point where the proposed junction is to be located. This along with its juxtaposition with Uplands Road and Harry Cheek Gardens and opposite the well used Scout Hut would result in a dangerous access both to road users and pedestrians with particular reference to school children attending Northwood Primary School and users of the Scout Hut. Concern that the visibility splay is insufficient to ensure safe egress given the points raised above. Reference also made to the speed levels of traffic using Wyatts Lane which is not traffic calmed with some of those speed limits exceeding 30 mph.

Site is located on the edge of the countryside and therefore the type and density of development is excessive and out of character with this location. Local Councillor suggests that this would destroy the uniqueness of this part of the village having an urbanisation effect contrary to UDP policies.

Some objectors do not necessarily object to the introduction of single storey dwellings but consider the introduction of two storey houses to be inappropriate likely to result in noisy families, disturbing the mainly elderly residents who reside particularly in the Harry Cheek Gardens development.

Concern that the introduction of houses in relatively close proximity to Harry Cheek Gardens will result in an overlooking and an over dominance of that established development.

Proposal provides insufficient parking, i.e. 10 parking spaces for 7 units which could result in pressures on on-street parking in Wyatts Lane.

Proposal is likely to result in loss of a considerable number of trees with resultant loss of wildlife habitat with particular reference to red squirrels. Such loss of trees may also affect water tables which could contribute to flooding problems in the area. Reference is also made to the existence of natural springs which would be affected by any proposed development.

Concern that the drainage systems in the area are incapable of accepting this additional drainage.

Destruction caused by building works.

Local Councillor makes specific reference to recent planning appeal decision in respect of infilling in Oxford Street at which time the Inspector made particular reference to the character of the street scene on one side of that road.

Local Councillor also makes reference to the Wyatts Lane street scene with particular reference to the character of that street in this area. His comments are as follows:

Near the access point has a deal of rurality about it, i.e. the Scout Hut and field nearly opposite; no. 52 was formerly two 1850 cottages, whilst no. 54 is a Grade II Listed thatched cottage, both set in well wooded grounds. A well used and prominent rural footpath runs along the southern boundary of 54 leading directly into the countryside with stables nearby. In short if this application is granted the character of this area would be irreparably damaged.

Two of the above letters do not necessarily object to the development of the site but would request any existing hedgerows be retained. Also dwelling occupier opposite the site expressed concern regarding the proposed traffic calming hump and the effect that may have on access to his property. He also suggests that double yellow lines should be extended from the Scout Hut to Uplands Road on both sides of Wyatts Lane. Also suggestion has been made that the site could be accessed via Harry Cheek Gardens as opposed to Wyatts Lane.

In terms of the contents of letters following the re-advertisement, generally these simply reiterate points already made with one letter writer not at all convinced that the "improvements" to the access arrangements provide any safer access.

The level of objection to this proposal is quite considerable and in the interests of clarity I attach in its entirety a copy of the letter received from the local Councillor which covers in more detail the summary of all the other letters which have been received.

EVALUATION

Principle

The site's location within the development envelope boundaries means there should be a presumption in favour of development if all other issues are acceptable. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the site's location in relation to the edge of the countryside, I believe it would be difficult to resist the principle with the site likely to be deemed to be a windfall brownfield site, the development of which would make a valuable contribution to delivering housing and therefore take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

Density

Whilst again recognising the concerns at the density and type of development, proposal represents a relatively low density, i.e. 35 units per hectare which is only just above the minimum density requirement indicated in PPG3. Again I would consider that this level of density would not be inappropriate in this suburban site despite its location close to the edge of the countryside.

The applicant has been encouraged to ensure a mix of unit types with the location of the single storey elements of the proposal adjacent to the Harry Cheek Gardens development thus avoiding any undue impact on those properties and to a degree reflecting that type of development. The houses have deliberately been arranged not to overlook those properties.

The introduction of two bedroom units assists in addressing the Housing Needs Survey with those housing needs being equally as appropriate for Northwood as for any other suburban area. There is a need to ensure a range of dwelling types to aim at all income groups and hopefully provide a wider mix of social groups and age ranges. It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application although showing a considerable level of detail in respect of house types and layout. The details submitted indicates careful consideration has been given to layout and arrangement with the units being located in the more open areas of the site having least effect on loss of trees.

Ecology and Landscape Issues

The concerns of the Council's Ecology Officer have been addressed with the treed corridor being retained outside any residential ownership and I am satisfied that this will provide an effective landscape screen substantially reducing any likely impact that these dwellings may have on the edge of the countryside. Also the retention of this landscape corridor will retain wildlife habitat with particular reference to squirrels.

With regard to impact on the adjoining countryside, it is important to note that in fact land beyond to the south continues to be within the development envelope boundary and that the site itself is not on the edge of the development envelope boundary but it is accepted that the land beyond the public footpath does have a countryside character despite being within the development envelope.

Access / Parking

The proposed access road, with particular reference to the junction with Wyatts Lane has been the most critical issue in respect of this proposal. However, the Highway Engineer is now satisfied with the visibility splay now being proposed and I can do no more than accept his advice on this issue. The other benefit from this development is the acceptance by the applicants that a financial contribution will be required towards an overall traffic calming scheme for the whole length of Wyatts Lane. Hopefully this development and its contribution would be the trigger to designing and implementing an overall scheme which is essential given the level of speed of traffic which uses Wyatts Lane with particular reference to it being a route to a local school. Members will note the agreed contribution figure of £15,000 which will need to be the subject of a legal agreement.

In terms of parking, proposal is well within the permitted tolerances covered by parking zone 3. Experience suggests that two bedroom units are less likely to attract two car ownership in any event and therefore it is unlikely that this level of provision would result in further pressures on on-street parking. The parking provision of 10 units results in a parking provision of slightly less than 1.5 parking spaces per unit which not only complies with the Zone 3 policy but also the 1.5 space maximum advised in PPG3. Negotiations have resulted in adjustments to the position of the parking spaces to bring them closer to the units to which they serve. I am satisfied that both in parking provision and location the parking proposals are satisfactory.

Drainage

Within the adjoining public footpath is a surface water sewer which was constructed I understand at the time of the Harry Cheek Gardens development and into which the applicants intend to discharge surface water drainage. Indeed there is a conveniently located existing inspection chamber which can act as a discharge point. I would suggest, however, that a condition be applied requiring a check of the sewer to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to accept any additional surface water drainage from the site.

Similarly with regard to foul drainage a condition is suggested requiring a capacity check in respect of the combined sewer in Wyatts Lane and whether it is able to accept the additional foul drainage from these seven units.

It is important to appreciate that this is an outline application and I am satisfied that the above mentioned suggested conditions will be sufficient to flag up to any potential developer the need to comply with these conditions. The most important factor is that the information provided by Southern Water does not indicate that the site is impossible to drain and clearly there are existing sewers within the vicinity which could be used to provide drainage outlets for this development.

Impact on Listed Building

Members will note that the proposed access road is located close to the Grade II Listed cottage no.54 Wyatts Lane. It is only this element of the proposal which has any impact on the setting of that Listed Building with the dwellings themselves being a considerable distance and therefore having little or no impact on the Listed Building. In essence the access will replace domestic garden. Proposal indicates retention of existing hedgerows in the immediate vicinity of no.54 which will retain the landscaped setting to the Listed Building. It will obviously be important to carefully consider the treatment of the new access road in terms of surface finish in order to ensure that surface treatment is compatible with the setting of the Listed Building. This will be an issue that could be covered by conditions.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that all material considerations have been addressed with the proposal being acceptable in terms of principle, density, ecology and landscape and particularly in terms of access given the Highway Engineer's updated comments. Concern of local residents are noted, however they contain insufficient weight to warrant a refusal of the application. Site represents an ideal windfall site for this relatively modest level of development and whilst recognising its location close to the countryside in development envelope boundary terms it does not in fact directly abut that countryside with there being further land to the south and south west still within that boundary. Arrangement of dwellings has fully respected adjoining Harry Cheek Gardens development and the introduction of two bedroom terraced housing will provide the type of property which has been identified in the Housing Needs Survey as being in demand.

RECOMMENDATION - Approval (Revised Plans) (Subject to a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a contribution of £15,000 in respect of the carrying out of a traffic management/safety scheme to reduce traffic speed in Wyatts Lane, and a contribution to the upgrading of the surface of the adjacent public footpath CS14, with level of contribution to be agreed.)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to commencement/occupation/ of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to, and approved by, and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	The development shall not be brought into use until a turning space is provided within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No commercial/construction vehicles shall enter the public highway (Wyatts Lane) unless their wheels and chassis have been cleaned to prevent material being deposited on the highway. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations and capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connections at points on the system where adequate capacity exists or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure any additional flows do not cause flooding or overloading of any existing system. No dwelling shall be occupied until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	In this condition “retained tree” means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of (1 year) from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use). (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work); (b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all trees, shrubs and other natural features, 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. Such protection shall include a continuous fence along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority providing protection for the wooded southern boundary (adjacent public footpath CS14) and such fencing shall be retained both during and following completion of the development hereby approved. This wooded southern boundary shall not be included in any future residential curtilage. 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 all general trees and shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of the amenity and to ensure the wooded southern boundary is retained as an important landscape feature which provides a valuable wildlife corridor, all in compliance with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	The dwellings which abut the northern boundary shown on the plans hereby approved shall be of a single storey design with a pitched roof and no dormers or other windows shall be constructed within the roof. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of nearby properties in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
13	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating proposed treatment of the northern boundary with any such plan including details of materials, type and height of any fencing to be erected. Any such agreed boundary treatment shall be completed before occupation or completion of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
14	No existing hedges or hedgerows shall be removed, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed. All hedges and hedgerows on and immediately adjoining the site shall be protected from damage for the duration of works on the site by the erection of a 1.2 m minimum height chestnut paling fence to BS 1722 Part 4 securely mounted on 1.2 m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground or other agreed protection along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any parts of hedges or hedgerows removed without the consent of the Local Planning Authority or which become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously diseased or otherwise damaged within five years of contractual practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practical and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with plants of such sizes and species and in such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges or hedgerows and in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
15	Any scrub clearance or removal of woody species shall only take place between the months of August and February and at no other time. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/19342/B & TCP/19342/J Unauthorised deposit of inert waste at former Brading Golf Course, Carpenters Road, Brading

Officer: G Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Summary

To consider what action is necessary to resolve the breach of planning control following Counsel’s opinion. Breach of planning control is the depositing of inert waste material without planning permission.

Background

Originally there were two planning permissions relating to the land known as Brading Golf Course. Subsequently the area of land was designated with European Sites and both include a Section 106 Agreement limiting residential occupation, access and constructing the course to an International standard.

One of these applications was not implemented (the extension) and was sought to be renewed under TCP/19342/J. Despite requests for additional information over the last two years none was forthcoming and the application was finally disposed of under the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 25 (11).

The information required was complicated as it tied in with the requests for information for the perceived need to review the extant planning permission under Section 50 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats and c.) Regulations 1994.

This legislation appeared somewhat toothless in that it stated (Section 48)(2)) that the developer should provide information required by the Local Planning Authority (e.g. the drainage regime) but unfortunately there were no powers to enforce this. Thus, despite requests and negotiations no information was forthcoming. Plans and information were promised but to no avail. The Environment Agency and English Nature have been involved throughout. In essence the Environment Agency have given an exemption licence to the deposit of waste required for an extant planning permission.

Finally, because of this impasse Counsel’s opinion was sought and following the review of all files and the developer’s comments it was concluded that the original permission (if accepting that there was a valid permission which he does not conclude on) was implemented and completed very quickly. The records show eighteen holes and greens were completed. The site then went dead for a number of years and approximately four years ago new works were started. The developer acknowledged that the existing golf course (now overgrown) could not be drained adequately for all year use and therefore the existing approval had to be “lifted” in height to obtain better drainage.

Counsel have concluded that the works on site do not represent the former planning permission and are therefore unauthorised. He refers to Section 56(3) of the Habitat Regs;

“Where the Authority ascertain that the carrying out of the development would adversely affect the integrity of the European Site, they nevertheless need not proceed under the Regulations 50 and 51 if and so long as they consider that there is no likelihood of the development being carried out or continued.”

He then concludes that the fact that these unauthorised operations have been undertaken in order to provide a playable golf course is the clearest possible evidence that there is no prospect of the golf course as approved being completed and subsequently used. He advises that the Council may therefore reasonably conclude that there is no need to proceed under the 1994 Regulations because there is no likelihood of that development being continued.

In deciding to take enforcement action and addressing any planning considerations the following policies remain appropriate:

G6 Development In Areas Liable To Flooding

G6 The Council will not permit development in areas liable to flooding, or inundation from the sea, or where such problems could arise as a result of the proposed scheme, and will seek to keep such areas free from development. Where, in exceptional circumstances, planning permission is granted for development, the Council shall be satisfied that:

a adequate precautions and measures have been taken to minimise the risk to life and property;

b adverse effects on adjoining or associated areas will not be exacerbated;

c there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a result.

Development in areas liable to flooding will not be permitted if either the development or the precautionary measures will have an adverse affect on the ecology of the watercourses and adjoining land associated with them.

C8 Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

C8 Only in exceptional circumstances will development be permitted if it adversely affects ecologically sensitive areas, protected or endangered species and their habitats. The level of protection afforded to such areas will be related to international, national, or local importance.

C9 Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation

C9 Development will be permitted where the Council can ensure the protection of features of international importance which have been identified by the designation (or proposed designation) of sites under international conventions and directives. Where overriding public interest leads to development being permitted, compensatory measures to ensure the coherence of the international site will be secured.

C10 Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation

C10 Development will not be permitted if it would be likely to destroy or adversely affect directly or indirectly a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or National Nature Reserve.

Financial Implications

Members should be aware that under the Habitat Regulation’s requirement to review existing decisions and consents (under Section 50) that once reviewed their decision can lead to; affirm the permission; to modify it; or revoke it. To revoke planning permission would also carry the burden of compensation of which I would estimate that for a scheme of this magnitude would be approximately £2 - £6 million.

Therefore, on site we have a site with approximately 1-2 metres of inert waste placed to the west of the existing access road and adjoining the European designated site and SSSI. This development will need to be screened under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 to establish whether it is development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Options

Leave the inert material in situ and seek to landscape the land with the placement of topsoil, regrading of the land so existing ditches remain and removal of all associated works (weighbridge and portacabin). Such works shall include the removal of fill within five metres of the watercourse and ponds. A plan will need to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Pertinent to this is the sustainability of removing all the material off-site and possible damage caused to the designated areas of acknowledged importance. Three months for plan to be submitted. Six months for works to be completed.

Remove all material from the site. This would seem the natural reaction to the problem but should not be undertaken for punitive measures. Damage to the adjoining watercourses may occur especially as the final scraping takes place. It brings into play the sustainability of removing the inert material.

To seek a planning application to retain this land as part of a golf course. This appears a pragmatic solution but belies the fact that a pre-judgement has been made that the golf course is acceptable. Any planning application would have to accommodate the EIA Regs. The likely need to raise the land to avoid flooding would clash with the need for the land to flood.

Stop Notice. Again this would be a logical reaction to stop any further fill being placed on the site but runs the risk of compensation should the Inspector at any appeal determine that there was de facto no breach. I am comfortable with Counsel’s opinion but I am sure that an alternative opinion could be made and argued. Therefore, this is not the risk (although small) that I am prepared to take.

Site visit. In conjunction with taking enforcement action I believe great benefit will be achieved by taking on board the magnitude and the context of this development with its surrounding land uses and possibly agree specific requirements and steps to be taken as part of the Enforcement Notice.

Conclusion

Counsel’s opinion has brought our attention away from reviewing the perceived extant planning permission to one that there is a breach on site. With hindsight the complicated nature of this development could have been tackled by taking Counsel’s opinion much earlier but the spirit of the Habitat Regulations was to resolve the matter with the developer which we have attempted to do. Rather than dwell on the process leading up to the position we are in today I feel it is important to acknowledge that there is a breach of planning control and also to look forward to a position where we want to end up. I believe it is therefore important to seek an area of land that relates to the surrounding environment that is appropriately landscaped and with minimal visual impact. Therefore, it is important that to get to where we want to go the Enforcement Notice should be tailored appropriately. Arguments can be made that the inert waste should be removed from the site but this should not be driven for punitive reasons. The adjoining sites are very sensitive because of their European designations and accordingly these must be taken into consideration through any enforcement action. I therefore conclude that Counsel’s opinion has given the clarity that we sought and now acts as a basis for this matter to be taken forward and resolved.

Human Rights

Whilst it is accepted that the recommendation to commence enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the developer this has to be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of the developers it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It is also considered that the enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

Recommendation

Leave the inert material in situ and seek to landscape the land with the placement of topsoil, regrading of the land so existing ditches remain and removal of all associated works (weighbridge and portacabin). A plan will need to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Three months for plan to be submitted. Six months for works to be completed.

5 Site visit. In conjunction with taking enforcement action.

(b) TCP/25894 Unauthorised construction of a wooden building on OS parcel 5445 on the edge of Windgate Copse, Newtown, Isle of Wight.

Officer: Mr P Barker Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider what action to adopt in respect of a wooden building which is being built without the benefit of planning permission on the edge of Windgate Copse, Newtown, Isle of Wight.

Background

On 27 October 2003, following receipt of an allegation that a permanent wooden dwelling was being constructed at Windgate Copse, which lies to the north of Whiteoak Lane at London Heath. An Enforcement Officer visited the site and found a workman constructing a very large wooden building with a covered veranda on the front elevation. This whole area is one of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the Copse is a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

The Enforcement Officer questioned the workman regarding the building and he said it was to be a day shelter for forestry workers, and that all the timber was derived from the management of Windgate Copse. The Officer established a name and address of the owner of the land and on his return to the office tried telephoning him but received no reply. The Officer then wrote to the landowner instructing him to stop work and remove the part built building from the land within twenty-eight days.

On 3 November 2003 the landowner’s wife telephoned the Enforcement Officer and said that her husband was away at the moment and would not be back for another week. Her explanation for the building was that it was a replacement for an existing shed and a mobile home. She said that the purpose was for storage and for somewhere for her to go to do craftwork, working with willow. The Officer informed her that due to the environmental constraints that apply to this area the Planning Officer would probably have difficulty in recommending approval if an application were to be submitted. She confirmed that work had stopped on the building and added that she would discuss the matter with her husband, asking if they could have more time if they decided to commence removing it.

On 12 November 2003 the landowner contacted the Enforcement Officer and again asked if he could have more than twenty-eight days to remove it. The Officer informed him that this could be negotiated and asked how long he needed. The landowner would not give an answer, and then asked how long a planning application would take to determine. He was informed that it would take at least eight weeks and he was advised that any such proposal would be unlikely to receive support. The landowner said that he would consider his options and make contact with in the coming week. On 17 November 2003 a message was left at the Planning Department asking whether he could have the planning application forms.

This development is taking place within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and built virtually up against the adjoining Site of Special Scientific Interest. This unauthorised development is contrary to a number of policies within the Unitary Development Plan namely:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G1 – In general development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in this Plan by development envelopes.

G4 – Planning applications for new development will be permitted provided they maintain and enhance the interests of nature conservation and environmental protection.

G5 – Outside the defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed in the landscape, is of an appropriate scale, and is in one or more of the following categories of development:

C1 – Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea.

C2 – Within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice on the landowner requiring him to dismantle the building and remove the timber from the land within his ownership. Time for compliance three months from when the Notice takes effect.

2. To take no action and wait for the submission of a planning application.

Conclusion

The site lies within the open countryside in an area of high landscape value and one which also carries an ecological designation. Although I note the owner’s indication that the building will have some association with the woodland I do not consider that this is strong enough to justify setting aside the normally protective policy constraints which apply in this locality and which are set out above.

For these reasons, I feel that it would be difficult for any Planning Officer to recommend approval for a planning application and I therefore feel that it is prudent to at least put in place the authority for service of an Enforcement Notice even if a retrospective planning application is made.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice 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; it is recognised that the enforcement action will be an interference with the owner’s human rights but this has to be balanced against the human rights of others. The action is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice on the landowner requiring him to dismantle the building and remove the timber from the land within his ownership. Time for compliance three months from when the Notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services