PAPER B2

 

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/6218/E

A and E Roofing against refusal for demolition of store and outline for house and garage with vehicular access land between West View and Swans Nest, Winford Road, Newchurch.

 

 

TCP/1222O/P

Mr N Greenhalgh against refusal of outline for a bungalow at The Old Observatory, Stenbury View, Wroxall.

 

 

TCP/14373/G

Mr C Dixson against refusal for detached house and garage with formation of vehicular access at 15 Wood Street, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/9787/C

Mr C Spelling against refusal of outline for a dwelling on land between 4 and 6 Ventnor Road, Apse Heath.

 

 

 

 

2.

APPEALS WITHDRAWN

 

 

 

E/21249/G

Godshill Park Developments against Enforcement Notice relating to breach of condition in respect of carriageway construction at Medham Village, Medham Farm Lane, off Newport Road, Northwood.

 

 

 

 

3.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

TCP/10563/K

Miss A Bishop against refusal for demolition of hotel and the construction of five houses and three/four storey block of thirty two flats at Craven Court Hotel, 5 Highfield Road, Shanklin.

Hearing to take place on 11 May 2004.

 

 

 

 

4.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)  

TCP/25209

Mr and Mr M S Humphray against refusal for the formation of a raised deck area and summer house at 1 Solent Landing, Embankment Road, Bembridge.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 7 January 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 12 November 2003

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         Solent Landing has been developed as a unified concept and it is important that the integrity of the overall design should not be spoilt.

 

 

·         The proposed structures would intrude into the open nature of surrounding amenity space and conflict with the architectural integrity of the building.

 

 

·         The cumulative effect of the development would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character of Solent Landing.

 

 

·         Since the purpose of the decking is to take advantage of the views, it would not be screened by planting but even if hidden from view this would not be justification for the development.

 

 

·         The proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to G4, D1 and D2.

 

 

 

 

 

(b)  

TCP/13690/D

Mr R J Squire against refusal for detached house on land adjacent 116 Victoria Avenue, Shanklin.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 7 February 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 17 November 2003

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area having regard to restrictive policies relating to development in the countryside and the location of the appeal site adjacent to the AONB.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the habitat and wildlife, having regard to the presence of protected species and location of the appeal site adjacent to a SSSI.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The restrictive policies of the UDP must apply in this case to prevent the cumulative harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the countryside if the development were to be allowed.

 

 

·         The location of the site adjacent to an AONB lends further weight to the principle of resisting development which would harm the special character of the area.

 

 

·         The development fails to meet the criteria of G5 and H9 as it is not required for the purposes of agriculture or tourism and is not an infill plot.

 

 

·         The Council’s need to provide additional housing will be fulfilled through planned developments as well as making use of windfall sites in existing urban areas.

 

 

·         The need to protect and conserve this habitat for red squirrels is a matter of substantial weight.

 

 

·         The evidence of dormice on the site is less definite and reduces the weight which can be given to the need to protect the habitat on their account.

 

 

·         The erection of a house and the domestic activity and vehicle movements would have an adverse effect on wildlife using the woodland as habitat and corridor.

 

 

·         The proposal would be contrary to policy C8.

 

 

 

 

 

(c) 

TCP/20320/A

Mr C J Pavey against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for a dwelling on land rear of 1 and 3 Garfield Road, fronting Brook Road, Shanklin.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 5 February 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 17 November 2003

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

 

 

·         The effect on the living conditions of prospective occupiers of the dwelling and the occupiers of 1 Garfield Road in terms of privacy, light and outlook.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The character of housing in this area is predominantly semi-detached houses in reasonably sized gardens.

 

 

·         The constraints of the site mean the proposed development and the rear garden would be very small.

 

 

·         The proposed development would be out of character with the layout of surrounding dwellings.

 

 

·         The development would be contrary to G4, D1, D2 and H5.

 

 

·         The Environment Agency require no development within 3 metres of the top of the bank of the watercourse.

 

 

·         The building would need to be positioned so close to the southern boundary fence that any windows on this elevation would be deprived of sunlight and outlook to an unacceptable degree.

 

 

·         Because of the fall of the ground, the occupiers of 1 Garfield Road and the prospective occupiers of the dwelling would be able to overlook each other’s properties.

 

 

 

 

 

(d) 

TCP/10832/D

Mr M Burr-Hersey against refusal for detached house land to rear of 28 John Street, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal  – 25 February 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 18 November 2003

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building and the effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         A significant feature of the Listed Building is its blank west elevation which indicates that the building was never associated with land to the west.

 

 

·         The setting of the Listed Building does not encompass the garden area of the appeal site.

 

 

·         Listed Building is, however, a significant feature of this part of the Conservation Area and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

 

 

·         The proposed arrangements of  dwellings would be incongruous and inconsistent with the pattern of nearby development.

 

 

·         The proposed dwelling would not display a high standard of design, would not relate well to adjacent buildings, would not respect the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and would be unsympathetic in scale, form, siting, layout and detailing.

 

 

·         The proposal would conflict with D1 and D2 of the UDP and its unsympathetic design and relationship to the Listed Building would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area in conflict with B6.

 

 

·         The first floor windows of the proposed dwelling would overlook the main amenity area of the Listed Building and cause unreasonable loss of privacy.

 

 

·         The south west corner of the dwelling would be close to the rear yard of 12 Newport Street and would have an overbearing and dominant effect on this amenity area resulting in an unreasonable loss of enjoyment of that area.

 

 

 

 

 

(e) 

TCP/15334/A

Mr R Holbrook/Miss A Gray against refusal for external staircase from first floor flat to garden area at 18B Trinity Street, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 4 July 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 19 November 2003

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The impact of the development on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings with particular reference to privacy.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The construction of the proposed staircase would improve the privacy of the occupiers of the ground floor flat by removing the need to pass alongside their windows when accessing the garden.

 

 

·         On the other hand, the external landing and staircase would enable views to be obtained over parts of the neighbouring gardens to a greater degree than currently obtainable through the upstairs windows.

 

 

·         The frequency of the use of the staircase would not be controlled and the elevated situation would give nearby occupiers an increased perception of being overlooked resulting in significant loss of privacy.

 

 

·         The development would be contrary to Policy H7 of the UDP.

 

 

 

 

 

(f) 

E/25293

Mr M Sheppard and Miss M Knowles against Enforcement Notice relating to the formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding at Bexhill Cottage, Newport Road, Bierley, Niton.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Enforcement action to close the access and cease the use of the hardstanding.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Enforcement Action – 4 February 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 19 November 2003

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         Whether the development creates unacceptable road safety hazards.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         Visibility is restricted to some 10 metres both ways but is extended to about 45 metres northwards with the use of a mirror on the opposite bank.

 

 

·         Use of the lay-by would create road safety hazards not only because of the poor visibility but also because it is a narrow carriageway with no level verges or footways and a bank opposite.

 

 

·         The mirror, on highway land, is not a weighty point in favour of allowing the appeal as it is not an effective means of enabling approaching vehicles to see the lay-by and an emerging vehicle.

 

 

·         In any case, the future of the mirror is doubtful as the Highway Section has been asked to take action to secure its removal.

 

 

·         The site is in a predominantly rural area with a nominal bus service and where car transport is a normal part of modern life.

 

 

·         Walking along this road from the nearest safe place to park would itself be inconvenient and hazardous.

 

 

·         Neighbouring properties have lay-bys or driveways with poor visibility but these appear to have been formed before current policies and standards applied and the presence of some potentially dangerous accesses is not a reason for allowing another.

 

 

·         There is difficulty in weighing the arguments for and against the appeal but on balance the Council’s case is stronger.

 

 

·         The notice requires the reinstatement of the hedge across the lay-by.

 

 

·         There could be scope for some variation as a safer option including the possibility of providing off road parking and the period of compliance is extended from one month to three months.

 

 

 

 

 

(g) 

TCP/6507/B

Mr and Mrs S Howe against refusal for demolition of existing dwelling and outline for two detached houses at 314 Gunville Road, Newport.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 21 January 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 20 November 2003

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the rural character of the area.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The replacement of the existing bungalow with a dwelling of similar scale and mass would be permitted under H9 but the proposal is for the construction of two dwellings.

 

 

·         An additional dwelling would not accord with H9 as it is not essential for agriculture, tourism or provide affordable housing and it is not a conversion of a rural building or the infilling of a small gap.

 

 

·         The proposed additional dwelling does not fall within the categories of G5.

 

 

·         The proposed development would have a significantly greater scale and mass than the existing bungalow and would consolidate development in this countryside area.

 

 

·         The location of the proposed dwellings relative to the neighbouring properties does not justify allowing a proposal which would adversely effect the rural character of the area and would undermine the policies of the UDP.

 

 

 

 

 

(h) 

TCP/11229/B and CAC/11229/C

Refusal of planning permission and Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of shop/workshop and shed/store and the erection of a detached house and a three storey block of six flats at 26 Garfield Road, Ryde.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) (both applications) – 24 February 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed (both appeals) – 21 November 2003

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development and the demolition of the existing buildings on the character and appearance of the Ryde Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining dwellings in terms of outlook, sunlight and privacy.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The appearance of the existing workshop has certain shortcomings and sensitive redevelopment of the site could enhance the Conservation Area but some of its features are valuable ingredients in the Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The proposed western elevation of the flats would present a large blank façade which would be highly obtrusive and the yellow brick cladding would be out of keeping.

 

 

·         The details of the proposal have much to recommend them but the concerns relate to the form and bulk of the main building, its western elevation and the colour of the facing bricks.

 

 

·         The demolition of the existing building and the proposed redevelopment would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

 

 

·         The western elevation of the proposed flats rising three stories would have an unacceptably overbearing effect on the occupants of 4 and 5 West Street.

 

 

·         The loss of sunlight in the winter would be unacceptable to these residents.

 

 

·         The main building would also impinge unacceptably on the garden area of 24 Garfield Road and cause loss of afternoon sunlight particularly in the winter.

 

 

·         There would be overlooking at close quarters of the garden of no. 5 West Street.

 

 

·         Requirements of PPG3 must be considered in conjunction with the need to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties when development opportunities arise in built up areas.

 

 

·         The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings and would be contrary to D1 and D2.

 

 

 

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.