REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

SITE INSPECTION – 16 DECEMBER 2004

 

1.

TCP/17828/S   P/01932/04  Parish/Name:  Ryde

Registration Date:  13/09/2004  -  Outline Planning Permission

Officer:  Mr. C. Hougham           Tel:  (01983) 823576

 

Outline for retail unit with parking (revised scheme)

Brickfields, Newnham Road, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO33 3TH

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

The application is being reported at the request of the Head of Planning Services and by the local Member, Councillor Fox, at the time of submission.

 

Application was due to be considered at the last meeting of the Committee (16/11) but was deferred, prior to consideration, when Members heard that the application had been unable to register in time to speak at that meeting; he was taking advice from the Head of Tourism and he was concerned that the Local Ward Member would not be in attendance at that meeting.

 

The decision to defer consideration was taken contrary to advice given by the Development Control Manager who reminded Members that the application is a resubmission of an earlier identical proposal which was refused and there was not sufficient justification to delay the determination of an application which is clearly contrary to local planning policies.

 

This report includes further information added after the decision to defer consideration in order to allow Members to visit the site.

 

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

 

This major application, if determined at the Development Control Committee on 7 December will have been determined within the  thirteen week period.

 

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

Site is located approximately 500 metres south of the end of the residential development of Newnham Road, Binstead and approximately one kilometre north east of Havenstreet.

 

The site has an overall area of approximately 2 hectares and comprises a series of buildings of mixed designs, styles and materials, some agricultural in character and used for various purposes within the equestrian centre. Site has a frontage to Newnham Road of approximately 200 metres and, overall, a depth of approximately 150 metres. There are two vehicular accesses in that frontage although, the northerly access is not the main access to the site for the public.

 

Site is used for equestrian purposes and the existing buildings comprise a small shop, museum of carriages and other artefacts of considerable age, stabling and the main, largest building on the site contains an arena, restaurant and bar and small gift and accessory shop. There is a large car parking area approximately mid way in the frontage.

 

The surrounding area is an open, rural aspect on the outskirts of the Ryde and Binstead area.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

Various applications for development at the equestrian centre dating back to 1982 when an indoor riding ménage was approved. The site had already been established as a centre related to horses including a blacksmiths shop, tack and food shop, stables for livery purposes and an outdoor ménage.

 

A change of use of approved viewing gallery to ancillary shop, snack bar, lounge bar, indoor ménage was approved in January 1983 whilst in August 1985 and exhibition centre/museum and toilet facilities were approved. In July 1986 a temporary consent was granted for a one year period to allow for the additional use of the premises for discos and live groups (maximum of twelve events). A further consent was granted for that same use in August 1987 expiring in September 1990 but limiting the use to a maximum of six occasions per year.

 

A single storey extension and alterations were approved in April 1990 to provide a small extension to the shop area and in September 1990, further consent for the use of the premises for discos and live groups was approved, expiring in September 1995 with a maximum of six occasions annually. In 1995 a permanent consent was granted for the additional use of the premises for discos and live groups, again with a maximum of six occasions per year.

 

The shop, following the permission described above had a floor area of 90 m˛.

 

In April of this year an outline planning application for a retail unit with parking was refused on the following grounds of: -

 

The proposal represents the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the existing establishment and located outside of any town or village centre which would be contrary to policy R2 (New Retail Development) and Strategic Policy S14 (New retail development will be expected to locate within existing town centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

That proposal showed a freestanding building to be sited on the south east side of the ménage building close the south eastern boundary of the site. The building was shown to comprise 222 m˛ of warehousing; 60 m˛ of staff facility; 932m˛ of retail; 264 m˛ under a canopy with a compound area of 883 m˛.

 

Although in outline form, extensive detail showed the building to be steel framed, brickwork to a height of approximately 2.5 metres with composite wall cladding panels under a profile box section roof. Overall height of 7 metres to the ridge and 5.3 metres to eaves.

 

It was proposed to include in the product list for sale, agricultural goods including animal feed; fencing and gates; animal health products; vermin control products; hardware; garden machinery; equestrian products; heating fuel; pet foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work clothing; domestic products and gardening products.

 

In summary it was considered that the proposals formed the establishment of a very substantial retail outlet in an out of town location; that there was no justification to set aside normal policy regarding the establishment of new retail uses and that such a retail outlet would be more appropriately sited within a town centre or edge of centre location where it would enhance the retail function of that town.

 

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

This application is a resubmission of that previously refused and again seeks outline permission with all matters reserved for future consideration but including the extensive details for guidance purposes. The proposal is as before seeking consent for 222 m˛ of warehousing; 60 m˛ of staff facility; 932 m˛ of retail floor space with an external canopy area enclosing 264 m˛and a compound of 883 m˛. The aggregated retail floor space within the proposed building, the covered area and the open compound totals 2,079 m˛ which equates to almost 22,400 square feet.

 

Prior to the last meeting a local agent presented a statement on behalf of the applicant in support of the application which states:

 

            ..... application is for an extension to our existing business which we have run for 29 years and attracts over 100,000 visitors. It is a diversification of a core agricultural activity and meets national planning guidelines as given in PPS7.

 

The proposed extension is not new stand alone retail but a very necessary addition to our future plans as an equestrian evening centre which employs upwards of 50 people and meets the stated aims of the Council's tourism strategy which are to encourage growth in the areas which we operate.

 

We note that not far from us, a national retailer (Tesco) is planning to enlarge an existing  out of town store, probably introducing more non-food lines.

             

 We have to provide a range of new opportunities to visitors at our equestrian centre and the aspect of equestrian and field sports equipment for sale on site  is part of that growth opportunity, our customers expect that facility to be on site and not in a town centre site.

 

Green tourism. farm and equestrian related holidays have become very popular nationally and we on the Isle of Wight should take advantage of this market. To do this we have to appreciate the developments in this area will have by nature to take place in the countryside.  

 

At Brickfields we have an established tourism related business which has operated  for over 29 years in conjunction with the farm of 300 acres.  As the supporting letter from the NFU states "diversification to support core agricultural activities in line with national policy."

 

We respectfully ask Members to approve this application from a well established local business that employs local labour, is a training education centre and a working farm and business that need to be able to compete to survive.           

             

The proposed product list includes agricultural products including animal feeds; fencing and gates; animal health products; vermin control products; hardware; equestrian products; pet foods; harvesting products; field sports and hunting equipment; work clothing; and gardening products. The only products which have been omitted from the list of those proposed in the previous application are domestic products, heating fuel and garden machinery.

 

Although submitted for guidance purposes the layout is as before with the proposed new building sited to the south east of the existing ménage and close to the south eastern boundary of the site, with a substantial car parking area in front comprising of 66 spaces plus 4 disabled. Access to the site would be again off the south western most access onto Newnham Road as existing.

 

Elevations are, again, as previously submitted, brickwork to a height of 2.5 metres between the steel columns with composite panels to eaves and a roof of profiled, box section roofing sheets, both in a white finish.

 

Building is shown to have overall dimensions of 32 metres by 41 metres, 5.3 metres to eaves and 7 metres to ridge.

 

Following deferment at the last meeting and following preparation of this amended report, a further set of revised plans have been received. These are still for guidance purposes only and show the size of the store to be reduced, the overall size of the building to be 32m x 31m which equates to a gross floor area of 992m˛ with a canopy area of 20m x 13m, 260m˛. Of the 992m˛,  435m˛ would be retail, 418m˛ as warehousing, the remainder for toilets, office and holding areas. This represents a gross floor area of 1252m˛ (or 13,475 sq ft). This reduction has been achieved by reducing the building from 41m to 31m in width.

 

Despite the reduction in the floorspace of the building by a approximately a third,  no reference is made in these revisions to the former 'compound' of 883m˛, either to be reduced or omitted. However, Members are reminded that plans submitted are for guidance purposes only.

 

Copies of the latest submitted drawings are attached to this report for Members information.

 

Prior to the most recent meeting the applicant submitted further infromation/representations in support of the proposed development:

 

·         Statement outlining current and future proposals for the site

·         Cash flow forecast for the business for 2005

·         Letter from the Chairman of the Riding for the Disabled Association which talks about the applicant's desire to "extend the premises" but seems to relate to the overall size of the arena.

·         Letter from area representative of the British Show Jumping Association making similar observations about the increased use of the facilities if the arena was enlarged.

·         Member of the Wight Equine Driving Society supporting the application because of the expansion of the tack shop.

·         Letter from Hon. Sec. of IOW Gun Dog Club talking about the use of the arena and supporting improvements to any of the facilities.

·         Letter from Brickfields Amateur Radio Society stating that they have used the premises as a base since 1988 and the improvement that they have seen to the facility during that time.

 

There was also a letter from the applicant in connection with the amended report considered by Members at the last meeting. He complained that the report made reference to the intention to sell items described as "hunting equipment".

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Site is located outside of the designated development envelope as shown on the Ryde inset of the Unitary Development Plan but is under no other notation. The site is not in the Conservation Area and not in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

Policies applicable to this application are: -

 

            G2 – Consolidation Outside Development Envelopes

 

            G4 – General Locational Criteria

 

            G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

 

            D2 – Standards of Development Within a Site

 

            E1 – Promotion of New Employment Uses

 

            C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

 

            C15 – Appropriate Agricultural Diversification

 

            C24 – Commercial Riding Establishments

 

            TR3 – Locating Development to Minimise the Need to Travel

 

            R2 – New Retail development

 

R2 - Planning proposals for new retain development will be acceptable in principle provided they take place within defined town centre shopping areas. Outside of the defined shopping areas, planning permission for small shops will be approved providing they:

 

            a) serve a local need only;

            b) are located within existing village settlements, or are ancillary to a tourism         

           

or farming operation, or are associated with an existing service station.

 

A prime objective of the shopping strategy is the continued promotion and enhancement of the town centres in order to ensure their viability and vitality. 

 

Central Government advice now is to ensure that new retail development promotes existing town centres and that development plans should provide for required shopping growth over the planned period.

 

PPG6 – Town Centres and Retail Developments

 

Raises the issue of retailing (or shopping) in rural areas and under Paragraph 3.21 states:

..."shops ancillary to other uses, such as farm shops, can also serve a vital function in rural areas, by helping to meet demand for fresh produce and providing new sources of jobs and services, so contributing to the diversity of economic activity in rural areas. In assessing such proposal local planning authorities should take account of:

 

·         The desirability for the farm of providing a service throughout the year;

·         Potential impact on nearby village shops;

 

·         The likely impact of traffic generated, access and parking arrangements.

 

PPG6 advises local planning authorities to adopt a positive, plan-led approach to handling planning applications involving new retail development. It advises that when preparing planning strategies and policies to consider the need for new retail development in the plan area over the lifetime of the plan and having established that such need exists, local planning authorities should then adopt a sequential approach to identify suitable sites. If there is no need for further developments, there will be no requirement to identify additional sites.

 

Proposals for new retail development which accord with an up to date plan strategy or are proposed on sites within an existing centre, should not be required to demonstrate that they satisfy the test of need because this should have been taken into account in the development plan. However, proposals which would be located at an edge of centre or out of centre location which are not in accordance with the up to date development plan strategy should be required to demonstrate both the need for additional facilities and that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location or the site.

 

In summary, applicants must:

 

·         demonstrate that there is a need for the development;

 

·         having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site location;

 

·         consider the impact on nearby centres;

 

·         and provide evidence on the site's accessibility by a choice of means of transport, as demonstrated by a transport assessment, the likely changes in travel patterns over the relevant catchment area and any significant environmental impacts.

           

Very similar advice is incorporated in the consultation draft of the updated PPS6 which was released in late 2003 and is likely to be approved in the coming months.

 

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) was published just a few months ago replacing PPG7. In terms of key principles this new document refers to PPS1 and relevant to this particular case, states:

 

·         Good quality, carefully sited accessible development within existing towns and villages should be allowed where it benefits the local economy and/or community; maintains or enhances the local environment; and does not conflict with other planning policies.

 

·         Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips would be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling in line with policies set out in PPG13 (Transport).

 

·         New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscape, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

 

It is clear that planning has an important role in supporting and facilitating development and land uses which enable those who earn a living from, and help to maintain and manage the countryside, to continue to do so. In this context, local planning authorities should support development that delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises; and support other country based enterprises and activities which contribute to rural economies.

 

Recognising that diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises, local planning authorities should be supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development objectives and help to sustain the agricultural enterprise and are consistent in their scale with their rural locations. This applies equally to farm diversification scheme around the fringes of urban areas.

 

The provision of essential facilities for tourist visitors is vital for the development of the tourism industry in rural areas. Local planning authorities should plan for and support the provision of general tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres. Where new or additional facilities are required, these should normally be provided in, or close to, existing centres or villages. Government also encourages the provision of appropriate facilities need to enhance visitors' enjoyment and/or improve the financial viability of a particular countryside feature or attraction, providing they will not detract from the attractiveness or importance of the feature, or the surrounding countryside.

 

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

Planning Policy Manager considers the proposal to be inappropriate due to its size, nature of goods for sale, the fact that it is neither small nor ancillary. The proposal could be a 'stand alone' use, not relying on the primary use and become the dominant use of the site.

 

Following the decision to refuse the initial application and prior to the submission of the second application now under consideration, the Planning Policy Team Leader (David Moore) made the following observation when he was asked to comment on the proposed development.

 

It strikes me that a retail use and store layout of shelving as proposed, even on a reduced scale, could attract visitors and shoppers in its own right and not be ancillary to the primary use. It appears that it is to be run as a Countrywide Store, an independent operator, not as part of the equestrian centre. It may well be that on the scale proposed originally, or as a smaller unit this might become the dominant use of the site in terms of individual visitors and/or the primary business on the site. This would result in the establishment of a significant out of town retailing operation. The purpose of the proposed development (as stated in a letter from the applicant in April 2004) is to compete with other rival sites. This apparently relates to the supply of goods rather than rival equestrian centres.

 

It is clear in my mind that the basis for the development proposed is to secure an out of town retail business, albeit with a rural customer target, rather than provide a limited facilities which the tourist and visitor could expect as ancillary to the primary farming and equestrian business. As such it is clearly in breach of the Council's policy for the location of retail uses.

 

Highway Engineer recommend conditions if approved. 

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Not applicable.

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

 

Prior to the last meeting the Local Ward Member submitted a letter to the Chairman of the Committee he asked for the matter be brought before the Committee because there was considerable local interest. He also said:

 

Brickfields is one of the very few employers in the Binstead area so that any employment gains from the new development would be very welcome as would any planning gains that might be obtained by requiring improvements to the road geometry and access to the new and indeed existing site.

 

As the Local Member I am not able to make a recommendation but I wonder if any Member not clear on the suitability of the site or the options open would care to propose a site visit and so allow Member to have a better understanding of the likely impact of this application.

 

 

Letter from National Farmers Union (NFU) in support of the planning application confirming that the applicant has run an existing retail operation for 29 years in conjunction with the farming business of approximately 300 acres. States that diversification to underpin the core agricultural activities in line with current national guidance. Points out that the proposal is not for a new project on greenfield site and that it is to enhance an existing retail business which is necessary to ensure its future in a keenly competitive sector. Points out that for almost three decasdes it has contributed to the rural economy, proved employment and other activities and that refusal would threaten the viability.

 

CPRE object on grounds of excessive size of shop in an out of town location; generation of excessive levels of traffic; development contrary to policy; noise and light pollution and precedent for further, similar consolidating developments.

 

Two letters of objection from local residents of generation of traffic, congestion and parking; poor quality of highway and inadequate access in the widest sense.

 

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. However, no crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

 

EVALUATION

 

This is a resubmission of the application previously refused on the grounds that this very substantial retail floor space was not ancillary to an existing activity and that it was in a location well outside of the town centre or edge of centre, being in a comparatively isolated, rural area. Notwithstanding the claim made by the local Member that there is 'considerable interest' about this application it would seem from the evidence based on the number of representations received that this may not necessarily be correct. Since the application is clear conflict with approved policy the professional view is that it should have been dealt with under the delegated procedure as was the case with the first application. Nevertheless the request by the local Member was agreed in the interests of the openness and transparency of the system.

 

Despite the comprehensive detail submitted with the application describing the appearance of the building, the application seeks the principle of development and retains all matters for future consideration. However, as indicative plans have been submitted, it is clear the nature and scale of the building envisaged if the application is successful.

 

The application stands to be determined on policy and principle and strategic policy S14 and policy R2 assumes that substantial retail development will be expected to be located within town centres. This is reinforced by policies G1 and G2 which also expects that development would be located within settlements rather than outside of designated development envelopes. Policy G2 seeks to prevent consolidation of scattered dispersed or low density development in the countryside. Policy G5 allows for some exceptions to rural development restraint but subject to that development being of benefit to the rural economy, well designed and landscaped, of an appropriate scale and appropriate to an existing agricultural, tourism or other activity. Although policy E1 seeks to encourage development which would provide employment uses, these should be in appropriate locations and policies D2 and C1 seek to minimise the affect on the amenities of the area, specifically the countryside in this instance.

 

Policy C15 supports appropriate agricultural diversification and it could be argued that, in principle, the proposed activity is a diversification. However, the scale of this proposal is disproportionate with the other activities on site and would, in fact, dominate the overall use for the site.

 

Whilst policy C24 refers to commercial riding establishments, which the primary use of this site presently relates, the establishment of a substantial retail outlet is not supported by the policy.

 

Policy TR3 seeks to locate developments to minimise the need to travel. If a substantial retail floor space such as that proposed were justifiable, this is not the site upon which is should be located due to the site’s isolation and inability to be accessed by public transport or by foot.

 

Probably the most important policy in determining this application is R2 which seeks to steer new retail development to town centres unless they are small shops which would serve a local need or are located within an existing village settlement or ancillary to a tourism or farming operation. The existing shop on site has a floor area of approximately 90 m˛. The current application seeks to establish a retail floor space of more than 10 times than area and, in addition, an open canopy area of a further 264 m˛ of open retail area with additional open air areas of 883 m˛. This combined floor area for retailing could not be described as ancillary or small and would, in fact, dominate the other uses on site establishing a very substantial retail outlet in an out of town location.

 

It is important for Members to fully understand and appreciate the scale of the proposed development and in order to put the matter into perspective and ensure that Members are fully informed, I would advise that the estimated retail floor space of the proposed development if you include the outdoor sales areas, some of which are covered, amounts to almost 22,400 square feet  (reduced to 13475 sq ft in the latest revised plans) which can then be compared with the new Sainsburys store off Towngate Bridge/Sylvan Drive in Newport which is 27,000 square feet. Taking the revised plans into account this equates to a store half the floor space of Sainsburys and almost exactly the same as the proposed Lidl store at Shanklin.

 

Hopefully, Members will appreciate that any reference to the proposed development being ancillary to the existing equestrian centre is not a true reflection or a sustainable argument.

 

Bearing in mind the list of goods proposed to be retailed, many of these products are already found within town centre retail outlets and in small, ancillary retail outlets associated with other activities. Few need to be retailed in a rural location and retailing from this site will rely on a majority of its customers accessing the site by car although it is acknowledged that some may be accessing the site for the other facilities on the site as well.

 

The establishment of this substantial retail outlet is overtly contrary to several of the detailed policies in the UDP as well as strategic policies S14, S1 and S4. Accordingly I consider the development to be inappropriate in principle.

 

This report now includes further information particularly in relation to both national and local planning policies as well as quoting the views of the Planning Policy Team Leader (see Consultee Responses) in addition to illustrating in relatively simple terms the scale of this proposed development and why it conflicts with numerous strategies and policies which include PPG6 (and the draft PPS6), PPG7, strategic and local policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. Consequently this report concludes with a very strong recommendation to refuse planning permission.

 

The application is clearly in direct conflict with policies relating to out of centre retail development and in terms of the arguments advanced by the applicant and his agents about diversification it is my opinion that these are not sustainable since the very establishment of the equestrian centre represented an early case of diversification almost thirty years ago and the addition of such a large retail unit housed in an industrial building on the site is not diversification, since any argument that it is ancillary to either the equestrian use or the agricultural use on the rest of the land in the control of the applicant is not sustainable. Clearly such a retail outlet, even with restricted sales, would quickly become the dominant use on the site. Hopefully Members will agree that the application should be refused and any retail outlet on this site should be ancillary to the existing equestrian centre and the applicant should be invited to negotiate with professional officers within this context with a view to possibly providing an improved ancillary retail outlet in a suitably designed building, or by converting an existing building, which would give him a slight increase in retail floor space which goes beyond his present facility which I freely admit is quite limited.

 

Turning to the details submitted, these are submitted for guidance purposes but the style and appearance of the building is, in my view, inappropriate in this rural location due to its design, materials and colours which are more consistent with an industrial building.

 

The information, business plan and letters of support from various local organisations provided by the applicant should be regarded as background material only since the fundamental issue in connection with the determination of this application is one of approved policy. Any letters of support, some of which don't even refer to the proposed retail facility, should be given very minimal weight in a determination where the primary consideration is the interpretation and application of approved national/local planning policies.

 

I am able to confirm that an earlier identical application included a letter from the applicant's agent with a product list which included field sports and hunting equipment. This was the application which was refused under the delegated procedure in April 2004. The latest application was submitted by the same agent and was again accompanied by a suggested product list which included field sports and hunting equipment. Consequently, I conclude that this reference has not been included by error and can only assume that this was an oversight on the part of the applicant. In planning terms this issue is of no consequence.

 

Since this application is clearly contrary to national and local planning policies, indeed an identical submission was refused earlier this year, there is inevitably a concern amongst officers about the decision taken by Members to visit the site before taking a decision. The considered view is that the justification given by Members for this deferment is not sustainable. Notwithstanding the significant contribution made by the applicant to the local tourist economy, the relevant issues relate solely to interpretation and application of national and local planning policies relating to necessary controls over the location of retail development.

 

This detailed and comprehensive report has explained quite clearly why in planning terms a development of this scale could not be regarded as being ancillary to the existing equestrian centre and the proposal is not the type of "diversification" referred to in national and local planning policy documents when discussing the limited level of development that can be permitted within countryside areas outside development envelope boundaries.

 

If Members were minded to grant permission it is important that the Committee recognise that under the Town & Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999, the Council would need to refer the matter to the Secretary of State who would then have the opportunity to check general compliance with development plan policies and to consider whether the application should be "called-in" for his own determination. Under the relevant directions paragraph 7(4) requires that where an application constitutes a departure from the development plan and which, by reason of its scale or nature or the location of land, would significantly prejudice the implementation of development plan policies and proposals it should be referred to the Secretary of State. While the decision on referral rests with the Council, as Local Planning Authority, it is stressed that this decision is made lawfully and can be the subject to review by the Courts.

 

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 Councils Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

 

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

 

The proposal seeks to establish a very substantial retail outlet in the countryside, well divorced from a town centre and could not be described as being one which is edge of centre. The scale of the building and the purpose to which it is proposed to be put are not ancillary to an existing, established use as it is felt that it would dominate and become the primary use of the site. Accordingly the development is contrary to policies R2 (New Retail Development) and policies S14, S1 and S4.

 

            RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

 

 

The proposals represent the introduction of a substantial retail use, disproportionate to the existing establishment and located outside any town or village centre which would be contrary to Policy R2 (New Retail Development) and strategic policy S14 (New retail development would be expected to locate within existing town centres) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

 

 

2.

TCP/23485/C   P/01909/04  Parish/Name:  Ventnor

Registration Date:  08/09/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

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

 

Change of use of summerhouse to bed & breakfast accommodation for a maximum of 2 persons

Tamarisk, Love Lane, Ventnor, PO38

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

Report requested by local member, Councillor Bartlett who supports the provision of additional tourism accommodation and has indicated that the applicant requires this change of use in order to diversify his fishing business and as such believes the application constitutes appropriate diversification.

 

PROCESSING INFORMATION

 

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 13 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning application due to officer caseload and the need for committee consideration.

 

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

Tamarisk is located at the top of Love Lane, off Steephill Road, Ventnor. Love Lane is a private road of limited width, access via which is purely for the properties located on the lane and associated garages. Love Lane runs parallel to the cricket ground and neighbouring Ventnor Botanical Gardens and sits above the western cliffs and Steephill Cove within an area of outstanding natural beauty. The application relates to a summer house within the side garden area of the property with the main dwelling of Tamarisk – a timber clad bungalow, within a predominantly residential area. The summer house is presently positioned on the site and the application seeks consent to change the use from purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house to use as bed and breakfast accommodation.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

TCP/23485 - An application for a timber clad bungalow was approved in May 2000 following a number of refusals on the same site in 1974, 1976, and in 1978, later dismissed at appeal and an outline application again refused in 1979.

 

TCP/23485/B – An application for a summer house was approved in May 2003 for a summer house.

 

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

 

Consent is sought for the change of use of the summer house to bed and breakfast accommodation for a maximum of two persons. The summer house has been located on the site since its approval in 2003 at which time a condition was placed on the application that the building should only be used for the purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be used for any business, commercial or industrial purposes whatsoever. This was put in place in order to protect the amenities of the area and to comply with policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

There is presently no tourism accommodation provided at this site. The application was accompanied by supporting information which indicates that the use of the summer house as bed and breakfast accommodation is required to provide additional income for the owner of the property who is a local fisherman. This information also indicates the summer house would provide accommodation for a maximum of 2 people and breakfast for visitors would be prepared in the kitchen of the dwelling. A copy of the supporting information is attached to this request as an appendix.

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Site is located outside the development envelope as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

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

 

            S4 - The Countryside will be Protected from Inappropriate Development.

 

G4 – General Locational Criteria

 

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements

 

D1 – Standards of Design

 

T3 – Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation

 

T9 – Small Scale Rural Tourism Development

 

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character

 

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

 

TR7 - Highways Consideration for New Development

           

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

 

Highway Engineer does not consider there to be an highway implications and has further confirmed that he does not consider there to be any justifiable reason for refusal.

 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership comment that they recognize the importance of tourism to economic and social wellbeing of local communities. However they believe that this should be balanced against potential impact on the environment, particularly the outstanding beauty of the island. In this regard they did have some concerns that the proposal does not strictly meet the criteria set within the policies. Additionally they have concerns over the possible a precedent which would be set by this proposal for the change of use of summer houses into tourist accommodation.

 

Comments from the Head of Tourism have been received and are attached in the appendix of this report.

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Ventnor Town Council recommends refusal on the grounds that this is an inappropriate development of an existing property and access is inadequate.

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

 

Six letters were received in support of the application from the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce, a local business, local residents and visitors from the mainland supporting the application on grounds that there is a need for tourist accommodation in the locality. The property is considered to be ideally located close to Steephill Cove and other facilities with outstanding views.

 

Two letters were received from a local resident objecting on grounds which can be summarized as follows:

 

·         Quality of the road, traffic generation and parking problems. A memo was included from a Highway Engineer dated 6 April 2000 in respect of the application for the dwelling recommending refusal on grounds of traffic generation and inadequate access.

 

·         Access for emergency vehicles

 

·         Present dangers to walkers having to weave through parked cars

 

·         Suggestion that improvement in site line or the installation of traffic lights at the junction between Love Lane and Steephill Road.

 

·         Summerhouse originally approved as tool shed if converted will there be the need for another building on site to provide a shed.

 

·         Precedent.

 

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

 

EVALUATION

 

Determining factors in considering this application are whether the proposal conforms with the Unitary Development Plan Policies with regard to provision of tourist accommodation or whether the need for tourist accommodation outweighs any policy objection.

 

The summer house lies within the side garden of Tamarisk accessed via Love Lane, a narrow one car width unadopted road. Love Lane serves a number of properties and garages. The road has a number of signs indicating that it is private with no through route, which it is understood are displayed due to problems with turning at the top of the road.

 

The dwelling of Tamarisk was approved by the committee in 2000 contrary to officers recommendation following a site visit and a number of previous refusals and an appeal dismissal for a dwelling on the site. The Summerhouse was later approved in 2003 subject to a condition that it was only used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and not for any business, commercial or industrial purposes whatsoever. This restriction was imposed in order to protect the amenities of the area.

 

Policy T3 (Criteria for Development of Holiday Accommodation) and Policy T9 (Small Scale Rural Tourism Development) are particularly relevant to current proposal and clearly indicate that the development of holiday accommodation will only be acceptable in principle where, in summary it is associated with another established accommodation use, extending the holiday season or the use is ancillary to an existing agricultural activity. Although the applicant is involved in the fishing industry, this would not be classified as farm diversification as there is no active agricultural use on the site. Within Policy T9 (C) allowance is made for the change of use of suitable residential properties in the countryside to hotels, restaurants or hostels. However this generally relates to the change of use of dwellings to provide bed and breakfast/serviced accommodation and I do not consider a summer house represents a suitable residential property, or that this complies with the policy.

 

Whilst the accommodation would meet the criteria set down by the Head of Tourism Services and would satisfy a demand for this type of accommodation making best use of the location and views, it does not comply with policies set out in the Unitary Development Plan, specifically T3 and T9. Whilst acknowledging the importance of tourism to the Island's economy, I do not consider that the demand for additional accommodation or the location of this particular site outweighs the fundamental policy objection to this proposal.

 

When considering all relevant polices within the Unitary Development Plan and fully assessing the impact of a change of use of this nature, I consider that it would set an undesirable precedent, with the possibility of many people wanting to change the use of garden buildings into holiday use or site additional buildings for each use, leading to scattered development. The application is unacceptable as there is a fundamental policy objection and approval would seriously undermine the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the previous condition imposed only a year ago and considered necessary as a commercial use on the site would not be appropriate due to the character of the area and access to the site.

 

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 in the public interest

 

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

 

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material consideration referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that, due to the absence of any tourist accommodation or commercial activity on the site,  the provision of tourist accommodation at this property would conflict with policies of the Unitary Development Plan and approval of such a facility within a summer house in this location would set a precedent for similar conversion and development in the locality, the cumulative effect of which would greatly impact on the amenities of the area, neighbouring properties and the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whilst acknowledging the contribution tourism makes to the economy of the island, I do not consider that, in this instance, this outweighs the fundamental policy objection to this proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL

 

 

Conditions/Reasons:

 

 

 

The site lies outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which involves the provision of tourist accomodation within the curtilage of residential property would conflict with the aims of the Local Planning Authority regarding such provision and would be contrary to policies G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), T3 (Criteria for Development of Holiday Accomodation), and T9 (small Scale Rural Tourism Development) of The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

The proposal would create an undesirable precedent which would make it difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist future applications of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to adversely effect the character of the area, particularly in areas of high landscape value such as the area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and would be contrary to Policy S6 (Be of A High Standard of Design), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

 

3.

TCP/26419   P/01215/04  Parish/Name:  Newport

Registration Date:  25/06/2004  -  Full Planning Permission

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

 

Pair of semi-detached houses

land rear of 32, St. Johns Road, Newport, PO30

 

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

Report requested by local member Councillor Mr Cunningham due to reason of local opposition, shortage of parking in the area and that he is of the opinion that this is the wrong type of development for the area.

 

PROCESSING INFORMATION

 

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 24 weeks and four days to the date of this committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the 8-week period for the determination of planning applications due to negotiations with applicant's agent, the need for committee consideration and officer caseload.

 

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 

No 32 is located to the lower half of St John' Road at the junction with Drake Road. The site is located to the rear of No 32 alongside the recently re-developed site formerly occupied by the Building Centre. The application site is bounded on three sides by gardens to neighbouring properties and faces the new flat development from which the site will be accessed and car parking provided. The area is of mixed residential with the new three storey development to the south, 1930s style properties to the east fronting on to St John's Road, with a 1960s chalet bungalow to the north.

 

RELEVANT HISTORY

 

None.

 

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

 

Full planning permission is sought for a pair of semi detached houses with two parking bays. The dwellings will be accessed from the south of the site via the newly constructed entrance off St John's Road to access the development recently constructed on site of former Building Centre.

 

Car parking area to the adjacent development is at higher level to application site, being roughly level with first floor of the proposed dwelliing. Therefore, from the car park, building would have the appearance of single storey structure.

 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

 

Site is located within development envelope, as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

 

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

 

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

 

S6 Development will be expected to be of a high standard of design

 

S7 Provision of housing units on the Isle of Wight

 

G1 Development envelopes for towns and villages

 

G4 General locational criteria

 

D1 Standards of design

 

D2 Standards of design within the site

 

H5 Infill development

 

TR7 Highway considerations for the new development

 

TR16 Parking policies and guidelines

 

CONSULTEE RESPONSEES

 

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

 

Environmental Health, recommends conditions if approved.

 

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

 

Not applicable

 

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATION

 

Seven letters were received from local residents objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

 

·                     Site too small to accommodate development

 

·                     Access for emergency vehicles

 

·                     Proposed removal of waste and storm water/drainage

 

·                     Parking and traffic generation

 

·                     Obstruction of light

 

·                     Precedent

 

·                     Noise/pollution

 

·                     Overdevelopment

 

·                     Impact on wildlife habitats

 

·                     Proposed development would be out of character with surrounding properties.

 

 

 

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

 

EVALUATION

 

Determining factors in considering this application are whether the site is an adequate size to accommodate the development proposed or whether the application constitutes over development.

 

The site is located within the development envelope of Newport and is therefore considered acceptable in principle as set out in policies G1 (Development Envelopes for Town and Villages) and H4 (Unallocated Residential Development).

 

The proposal involves development of a rear garden area to property fronting St Johns Road. However, site would have frontage onto parking area of and would appear as part of the new development on the site of the former Building Centre development. Dwelling has been designed to appear single storey from the southern (front) elevation in order to make the best use of the changes in ground level and will be two storeys from the rear, thus entering the site at first floor level with bedrooms below.

 

With regards to concerns that the site is too small and the proposal represents over development, when examining the design it would not give rise to any overlooking as windows at first floor level to the rear are to service bathrooms and can be obscure glazed and windows to the front would face into a communal area. The proposal provides adequate amenity space to the rear for a two bedroomed dwelling and due to the distance between buildings would not in my opinion appear over dominant thus complying with strategic Policy S6 (Development will be expected to be of a high standard of design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design).

 

The development could result in the loss of two small trees within the site. There are however six trees on neighbouring land outside the ownership of the applicant that will not be removed and provide a degree of screening. I do not consider that the removal of the two trees in question would have a significant affect on the level of screening to neighbouring properties or that they are of sufficient merit to justify refusal of the application.

 

As the access to the adjacent development has already been constructed to an acceptable standard and the proposed dwelling would be accessed over this area, I am satisfied that issues such as access for emergency vehicles have been satisfactorily addressed. The parking bays are also provided via the shared access. The application has been amended in order to include a parking space for each dwelling. This level of parking is considered to be adequate, particularly given the proximity of the site to the town centre and other services. This will not result in under provision of parking on the site as each unit retains parking and the flatted development complies with the condition for parking on site and Policy TR16 (Parking Provision and Guidelines).

 

Information provided on the application forms indicates that surface water would be disposed of to soakaways within the site and that foul drainage would be pumped to the existing system which serves 32 St Johns Road. This issue would of course be examined at Building Regulation stage. However, I would recommend that this issue is the subject of a condition, should members be minded to approve the application, in relation to a capacity check to ensure the present system can accommodate the additional load.

 

Due to the individual nature of the plot and the ability to front the adjacent development, the proposal would not lead to a precedent being set as other sites do not have the individual characteristics that make the development of this site possible.

 

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 the material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal for the development of a pair of semi-detached dwellings would make efficient use of urban land within the development envelope of Newport without having excessive or unacceptable impact on the environment or neighbouring properties and would not detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above I am satisfied that the proposal does not conflict with policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION - Approval

 

Conditions/Reasons:

1

Time limit - full   -   A10

2

No development shall take place until samples of materials and finishes, including mortar colour 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

No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s) hereby permitted are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

4

All materials excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area indicated in red on the submitted plans. The materials shall be removed from the site prior to the construction of the dwelling preceeding beyond damp proof course level or such other timescales as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

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

5

The windows to be constructed in the (first floor windows in the north elevation)  shall be non-opening and obscure glazed, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

 

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

6

No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writin for cars to be parked at a ratio of 1 space per dwelling and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear.  The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition.

 

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

7

No development shall take place until a detail scheme including calculations and a capacity studies, have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of fould and surface water disposal. Any such agreed  foul and surface water disposal system shall indicate connection points on the system that adequate capacity exist, including any reasonable repairs which may be required, 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 system has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul water drainage is provided for development in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

8

Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc   -   R02

9

Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers   -   R03

 

 

 

Andrew Ashcroft

Head of Planning Services