PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 16 JULY 2002

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT 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 PLANNING 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 DEVELOPMENT (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 Legal Services Manager, 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 PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 16 JULY 2002

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

www.iow.gov.uk/council/committees/developmentcontrol/16-7-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 16 JULY 2002

PART II

Site and Location

Application relates to the Metropole Hotel which occupies prominent site on corner of Ventnor Esplanade and Esplanade Road. Property is three/four storeys in height and is considered to be one of the most substantial and prominent buildings on the Esplanade. Lane to rear of property and Esplanade Road, which runs along eastern boundary of site, rises steeply. Property was previously used as an hotel but is now vacant and has fallen into state of disrepair.

Relevant History

Number of applications have previously been approved for development in connection with use of property as an hotel, including additional fire escape in 1975, creation of sauna in 1978 and change of use from cocktail bar to casino which was granted permission for limited period in 1985 and expired December 1991.

Most recent application, refused in July 2001, sought outline planning permission for redevelopment of the site for 22 flats with car parking and formation of new vehicular access. With exception of siting and access, all other detailed matters were reserved for subsequent approval. Application was accompanied by a site layout plan and an illustrative elevation plan giving indication of scale and mass of proposed building in relation to the existing hotel premises. Permission was refused for reasons relating to loss of hotel accommodation, impact of the proposed building on the character of the surrounding area and on grounds that proposed access to Esplanade and Esplanade Road were unsatisfactory to serve the development by reason of inadequate visibility.

Details of Application

Proposal involves demolition of the existing hotel building and erection on the site of a four, five and six storey building with basement car parking providing a mix of accommodation, including a restaurant and total of 22 flats, a number of which would be for occupation as holiday accommodation only. In this respect, original submission involved provision of six holiday flats and sixteen permanent residential flats. Following discussions with applicants agent, number of holiday flats to be provided was increased from six to eight, reducing the number of permanent residential flats from sixteen to fourteen.

Car parking would be provided for most part within basement parking area with small number of spaces to rear of building, all of which would be accessed from Esplanade Road.

Plans which form part of submission include elevation and street scene providing comparison between height, scale and mass of original hotel premises and the proposed building. These plans indicate that proposed building is of a similar scale and mass to the existing hotel premises and would be of similar height or lower, with exception of element on corner of Esplanade and Esplanade Road which would project a maximum of approximately 1.5 metres above height of original building. Whilst a similar height to original building, lower ceiling levels to be provided within accommodation facilitates increased number of storeys.

Application was accompanied by a report on ground stability issues associated with the development. The following extracts are taken from the conclusion and recommendations in the report:

"As it would appear to be impracticable to provide a sufficient factor of safety against possible slips occurring under the site the alternative approach is to ensure that the proposed development will not be adversely affected by any slip that does occur. Whilst it is impossible to safeguard against any imaginable slip, in reality the movement that does occur in this locality does tend to be slow and of limited extent. Most of the buildings in the area, including the Metropole Hotel, being relatively unaffected even after 100 or 150 years. Even where larger movements have occurred, as at the other end of the Esplanade, these have been less than a metre. According to Chandler, checks on the benchmarks in the area over the past 100 years have revealed upward movements up to 3.5 mm per year at the other end of the Esplanade and downward movements of up to 4 mm per year in Church Street...."

The engineer also concludes that:

"Whilst high, it is possible to design the proposed building in such a way as to be able to cope with this amount of movement without damage. If the building is split up into relatively square units with a structural gap between and the basement and superstructure are designed as rigid boxes with jacking points incorporated between so that the superstructure can be re-levelled at any time to take out any movement that does occur, there is no engineering reason why the development should not proceed. Care in the design would be required at each stage of demolition and construction to ensure that the present situation is not made worse. The services will also have to be flexibly connected to ensure that they are not disrupted by such movement".

The engineer who prepared the report recommended that a bore hole investigation will be required in due course to allow the detailed design of the proposed foundations. He considered that this should consist of at least three bore holes, one at each end of the site near the Esplanade and one to the centre rear of the site and that these should be taken to a depth of at least 20 metres. However, he expressed a view that, as the postulated slips are largely situated outside the site, only a widespread investigation extending up to Belgrave Road/Hamborough Road is likely to modify the conclusions reached in the report.

Application was also accompanied by information in support of the proposal entitled "Design Statement", a copy of which is attached to this report as an appendix.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Note 21 - Tourism acknowledges that tourism makes a major contribution to the national economy and to the prosperity of many cities, towns and rural areas.

Site is shown on plans which accompany coastal landslip potential assessment to be within an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development. The Development Control Guidance indicates that a desk study and walkover survey will normally need to be followed by a ground investigation or geotechnical appraisal prior to lodging a planning application.

Site is located within settlement of Ventnor as defined by development boundary on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brown field sites), rather than undeveloped (green field) sites.

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

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G7 - Development on Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

H14 - Locally Affordable Housing.

T1 - The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

T5 - Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Area.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Representations

Ventnor Town Council comment that they would prefer to see a greater number of holiday flats within this development on the Esplanade.

Highway Engineer initially commented that he would have preferred to see a footway provided on the landward side of the Esplanade although he noted that there was very little difference between the proposed restaurant entrance and the existing hotel entrance and expressed a view that it would be difficult to raise an objection on these grounds. However, he considered that the car park access point onto Esplanade Road as detailed on the original plan, had extremely poor visibility and was very narrow with no entrance splays. Therefore, he recommended refusal on grounds that the access onto Esplanade Road was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of unacceptable width and visibility. Furthermore, he commented that there is currently no parking within the application site and suggested it would be preferable to provide none in any redevelopment.

Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing an increase in the width of the access and an increased visibility splay. Following further consideration of the matter, Highway Engineer advised that, whilst an improvement on the original proposal, visibility would still be substandard although he would be prepared to accept it in this instance.

Principal Building Control Surveyor has carried out evaluation of the ground stability report which accompanied application and comments that, whilst the engineer expresses view that as the development is at the toe of the landslide system and the additional weight of the proposed structure compared with the existing building will improve the stability of the slope, he considers that the temporary stability of the slope as a result of demolishing the existing hotel needs to be considered, and in order to quantify this he advised that it would be necessary to carry out further subsurface investigations, as described in the engineer's report. In addition, he considered that the highway and adjoining ground will need to be supported, and details of this, together with a method statement indicating how ground stability will be maintained through all demolition and construction phases, should be submitted.

In terms of the impact to ground movement on the building, the Principal Building Control Surveyor advised that, with the anticipated magnitude of ground movement, the building will be subject to significant movement and this will be exaggerated due to the height of the structure. He noted that the engineer had acknowledged this fact and recommended incorporation of jacking points to re-level the structure when this becomes necessary. However, he was concerned as to how practical this will prove to be, particularly considering the proposed plan shape of the building, which would need to be subdivided with flexible joints between adjoining sections. Therefore, he requested submission of further details in this respect. Whilst further information was subsequently submitted, this did not include details of a subsurface investigation or sufficiently address temporary stability of the site during the demolition and construction phase so I and the Principal Building Control Surveyor are yet to be satisfied that recommendations contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 have been met.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer makes no adverse comment in respect of proposal and recommends condition, should Members be mindful to approve application, requiring satisfactory extract ventilation system to serve the kitchen of the proposed restaurant.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel who commented as follows:

Panel members were of the opinion that a drawing of the existing building would be extremely useful for comparison with the proposal.

The Panel were of the opinion that the articulation on the front of the building should be continued round the tower at the corner since this block would be viewed as a whole from the Esplanade due to the hill at the side and the vacant site across the other side of the road.

Five letters were received, including one from Island Watch and one headed Ventnor Residents which was accompanied by a petition containing 83 signatures, copies of press articles/notices, extracts from engineer's report and extracts from the Isle of Wight Structure Plan, objecting to and/or expressing concern with regard to proposal and raising the following issues:

Traffic movements would cause congestion at entrance to Esplanade Road and increased noise and pollution - parking could be provided away from the site, possibly involving issue of permits by Council.

Proposal would exacerbate ground instability/heave.

Adequacy of sound proofing between flats and ventilation is questioned.

It is suggested that restaurant should be located on top floor - better location for restaurant and smell of cooking would not adversely affect residents of flats and adjacent buildings.

Increased number of large structures being built in small area.

Development should incorporate higher number of holiday flats - at least 80%.

Ground floor could be either banqueting suite or a casino.

Strong objection raised to the major residential use of site - important to keep for holiday use otherwise may affect economy of town.

Need for fewer flats in luxury - small flats at inexpensive end of market end up as social housing to detriment of the town.

Site within area identified on Ventnor Landslide Potential Assessment to be within area "likely to be subject to significant constraints on development - development of proposal should identify and take account of the ground behaviour constraints".

Area designated as Landslide Toe - questionable whether proposed building could be supported.

Some inaccuracies in engineer's report and general lack of information - no structural evidence that Metropole Hotel needs to be demolished - should be repaired.

Reference is made to policies of Structure Plan and South East Wight Local Plan and it is considered that policies H2, H3 and D1 of the UDP reinforce these policies.

Mass of building would have detrimental effect on Esplanade. Building out of scale with surrounding properties - particularly due to its height.

Proposed balcony is not in keeping with area.

Building shown to be approximately 15 metres high - it is understood that there is a 6 metre height restriction on new buildings on Esplanade in interest of amenity.

Ventnor has sufficient social housing and suffers related problems.

Adequacy of sewerage system is questioned.

Whilst raising concern with regard to proposed development, several objectors welcome demolition of the existing building which has become an eyesore.

Evaluation

Determining factors in considering application are whether redevelopment of site for mixed residential/tourism development as proposed is acceptable in principle and whether building is of appropriate size, scale and design or whether proposal would detract from character of area. Factors relevant to consideration of the application include loss of the hotel accommodation, ground stability issues, highway issues and whether circumstances are appropriate to require developer to provide affordable housing on site or to make a contribution for off site provision.

Previous outline planning application for 22 flats on this site was accompanied by limited information in terms of the scale, mass and appearance of the building. Information provided included a line drawing of the proposed building giving an indication of the height and mass of the building but containing limited information in terms of its fenestration detail. This drawing indicated that building would be of similar height to the existing property providing accommodation on maximum of six floors with what would appear to be a flat roof with a shallow pitch at its perimeter. From an assessment of the information provided, it was concluded that the building, by reason of its position, size, mass, scale and appearance, would be intrusive, out of scale and character with surrounding properties and would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the locality.

Current application seeks full planning permission and was accompanied by floor plans and full elevational drawings. Proposed building would be four, five and six storeys in height and information submitted indicates that building would have similar footprint, scale and mass to the original building. I consider that the general appearance of the building and, in particular, window proportions reflect the Victorian architecture of the area. The building would, for most part, be constructed under a pitched roof with roof terraces enclosed by parapet wall serving flats at fourth and fifth floors. General form of building and, in particular, articulation in its height, assists in reducing its overall mass. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that the building is of an appropriate scale and mass which will be no more dominant than the existing building and that general appearance and fenestration of building is in keeping with the character of the area.

In accordance with Policy T5 of the Unitary Development Plan, outside the designated Hotel Policy Areas, development proposals which result in the loss of serviced accommodation of ten or more bedrooms will generally be contrary to policy, unless the proposal complies with the criteria set out in the policy.

Information provided in respect of previous application indicated that the Metropole hotel has thirty bedrooms, of which three were used as staff bedrooms and two rooms were occupied by the owner/manager leaving twenty five lettable bedrooms (twenty four double or family and one single). It is understood that all accommodation was provided with en-suite facilities. Hotel also operated with restaurant and bar together with separate cocktail bar area to the rear which was previously used as a disco/nightclub. Therefore, I consider that, in the past, premises would probably have made significant contribution to the tourism economy of the town and the Island in general.

Agent acting on behalf of applicant in respect of previous submission, submitted letter in support of that proposal, in which he expressed a view that the operation as an hotel is not sustainable and advised that the business made substantial losses since 1994 when his client first became involved. Furthermore, he did not consider that hotel had contributed to tourism for several years as the most recent use had been as a DHS hostel. He did not consider it was viable to refurbish the existing structure on top of the operating losses already suffered. Further information was provided by the applicant in this respect, in the form of a letter from Red Squirrel Estates Ltd, which indicated that an estimator had visited the premises during March 2001 to carry out a preliminary survey and report on what would be needed to bring the hotel back into service. As a result of this exercise, it was estimated that an initial sum exceeding £700,000 would be required to renovate the property. Applicant also provided extracts from profit and loss accounts for the hotel which showed a loss of £16,315 for year ending 31 March 1996, a loss of £31,921 for year ending 31 March 1997 and a net profit of £15,512 for year ending 31 March 1998. Information was also provided suggesting that property had been offered on the open market for a considerable length of time and that numerous sales had fallen through because of particular problems that Ventnor was experiencing in terms of lack of tourism. Further information was provided in respect of the marketing of the property indicating that selling agents had received two offers for the premises in the region of £150,000 to £160,000.

The property has continued to deteriorate and it is now considered that general appearance of building is such that it detracts from character and amenities of area. However, I do not consider that this factor in isolation would justify approval of application which is strictly contrary to policy relating to loss of hotel accommodation as it would be all too easy for other owners of hotels with ten or more bedrooms to allow their properties to fall into disrepair. Nevertheless, in this instance, I consider that it is unlikely that the property would be renovated or rebuilt to provide accommodation solely for use as an hotel. The current proposal differs from the previous application in that it makes provision for a mix of commercial and residential accommodation, including a restaurant and a number of holiday flats. The mix of accommodation originally proposed involved provision of restaurant with six holiday flats and sixteen permanent residential flats. Design statement which accompanied the application indicates that the restaurant and holiday flats would be retained in same ownership. It was considered that this made inadequate provision for holiday accommodation and following negotiations with applicant's agent, number of holiday flats was increased from six to eight, reducing the number of permanent residential flats from sixteen to fourteen. Whilst this is clearly an improvement in the provision of holiday accommodation within the development, I would prefer to have seen the number of holiday flats increased still further. However, applicant's agent advises in a letter accompanying revised plans that, in view of the very high build costs of this structure, any increase in the number of holiday flats to be provided would threaten the viability of the scheme. No breakdown of costings and likely revenue to be derived from the development has been provided in order to substantiate this claim.

Development would provide total of twenty two flats and, notwithstanding nature of occupation, it is considered that proposal would attract a requirement for the provision of affordable housing. Therefore, this issue has been raised with the applicant's agent. As a result, letter has been received direct from the applicant addressing this issue. In this letter applicant advises that he wishes to demolish the existing building which is considered to be well past its sell by date and replace it with a quality development which will contribute considerably to the regeneration of Ventnor Esplanade alongside the proposed pedestrianisation and new marina close by. He comments that this is a difficult site geologically and will need expensively designed and constructed foundations. He points out that they have already conceded the provision of eight holiday apartments and a restaurant which are clearly not economical to build in their own right and the remaining fourteen residential units will have to subsidise their inclusion. He considers that to penalise the development with social housing on top of this will render the scheme unviable. He further points out that there are, in any case, only fourteen residential units and that this falls below the social housing threshold. He expresses view that development complies with PPG3 in terms of density and the fact that this is a brown field site.

Members will be familiar with a similar scheme for the demolition of the Rex cinema in Church Street, and the erection of a four/six storey building containing eighteen flats with car parking at garden level, one retail unit and a bar/restaurant at ground floor level. In this instance, provision of social housing was also raised with the applicants as the number of flats to be provided exceeded the threshold of fifteen units. During negotiations with the applicant, it was recognised that this provision was unlikely to be provided on site and that this requirement could alternatively be satisfied by off site provision or a financial contribution in this respect. However, the applicants expressed a view that to apply this policy to this particular site in whatever form is unreasonable and set out their reasons in writing. Amongst these reasons, it was suggested that, having carried out some research, including consultation with the Council's Housing Department, it was considered that the local need for Ventnor is unproven and goes as far as to suggest that Ventnor has larger proportion of social housing than many of the towns on the Island. The most important consideration in the eyes of the applicant as to why they did not wish to be bound by this requirement was the extremely high cost of building on the site due to the ground and slope instability problems highlighted by the need for a detailed engineer's report. Furthermore, other similarities between the Rex cinema site and Metropole site include provision within the development of commercial elements which are considered to make a contribution to the economy of the area.

It is necessary to weigh the importance of achieving a development on this important site in the interests of the regeneration of Ventnor and the site's prominent location on the Esplanade, against the need to ensure developments of a specific density make provision for social housing to be on site, off site or in the form of a commuted payment. Whilst applicants in respect of current proposal have forwarded similar arguments as to why they would not wish to be bound by a requirement to provide affordable housing or to make a commuted payment in this respect, it is nevertheless necessary to ensure that all policies are addressed in respect of this type of development. I consider that, in this instance, the site's individual circumstances are exceptional, and therefore a decision to approve the application without requiring the provision of social housing units, or a contribution to such provision elsewhere, may be justified. I consider that this argument could be further substantiated by the applicant providing further details relating to the build costs of the proposed development.

Whilst in appropriate circumstances, and in accordance with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, development may be permitted with no or limited off street parking, having regard to location of application site and number of flats to be provided within the development, it would be desirable to provide a degree of parking in connection with the development. Submitted plans indicate that parking would be provided predominantly within a basement parking area with small area of parking to rear of building, all of which would be accessed off Esplanade Road. Whilst Highway Engineer originally objected to the proposed access arrangements on grounds of inadequate visibility, following negotiations with applicant's agent, the scheme has been revised and, whilst level of visibility which can be achieved is still substandard, Highway Engineer considers this to be adequate in this instance.

Whilst the application was accompanied by an engineer's report and further information has been provided in this respect, the Principal Building Control Surveyor remains to be satisfied that the site can accommodate the proposed building and that development will not lead to or exacerbate ground instability on adjacent sites or within the area generally. Therefore, in order to assess properly the development proposal in terms of the ground stability issues, he has requested submission of further information, including details of a sub-surface investigation. This additional information and, in particular, the sub-surface investigations will involve the applicant in additional costs which are likely to be considerable and prior to embarking on this exercise, he would wish to seek some comfort in knowing whether the scheme is generally acceptable in all other respects, including design and, in this instance, the mix of accommodation to be provided. In this respect, Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land advises as follows:

"If the information about instability initially provided by the applicant is insufficient to enable the Authority to determine the application two alternatives would appear to be open to the Authority:

(i) If the application clearly fails to meet other planning criteria then the application may be refused. Clearly the applicant should not be put to the unnecessary expense of a specialist investigation if other considerations would result in refusal of permission. In refusing such applications, however, the applicants should be advised that should he succeed in overcoming other planning objections he would still need to satisfy the Authority on the question of ground stability;

(ii) If a refusal on other planning grounds is unlikely or not clear cut, the applicant may need to be asked to provide further information about stability. It may be possible at this stage to indicate to the applicant whether stability is the major issue which needs to be resolved before determination, i e if the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission provided that it can be satisfied that any actual or potential instability can be overcome. The Authority would then determine the application in the light of such information as provided."

Having regard to the above comments and the advice contained in PPG14, it was felt appropriate to bring this matter before Members in order to seek an indication as to whether the development was considered acceptable in all other respects, prior to requiring the applicant to submit additional information in respect of ground stability. Should Members be of the opinion that the development is acceptable in terms of the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the building, parking and access arrangements, and in particular, the level of holiday accommodation being provided, I consider that, in addition to the ground stability information, it would be appropriate to require the applicant to submit further details regarding the costings for the development in order to substantiate claims made by the applicant regarding level of holiday accommodation to be provided. In addition, representations were received expressing concern with regard to the adequacy of the foul drainage system in the area to cater for the proposed development and further information should be sought in this respect.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the principle of a mixed commercial and residential development, incorporating a number of holiday flats, is acceptable. I consider that the scale and mass of the proposed building is similar to the existing hotel premises and that the general design and appearance of the building reflects the Victorian character of the town. Furthermore, having regard to the condition and general appearance of the existing building, its demolition and redevelopment of the site would improve the visual amenities of the locality. Listed below are suggested conditions should the application be approved at a future date, either in its present form or as an amended scheme.

               Recommendation -    That the applicant be advised that the demolition of the hotel premises and redevelopment of the site with a mixed use development, as proposed, is considered to be acceptable in principle and that the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the building are acceptable, subject to Members being satisfied with regard to the outstanding matters as follows:

                                               1.    Financial justification for the level of tourism accommodation to be provided within the development.

                                               2.    Information regarding capacity of the drainage system in the area to enable the authority to assess its adequacy to serve the proposed development.

                                               3.    Submission of development costs associated with the proposal to assure the Local Planning Authority that potential benefits to the area in terms of tourism and the tidying up of the site justify setting aside policy requirement to provide affordable housing.

                                               4.    Submission of further information in respect of ground stability as recommended by the Principal Building Control Surveyor.

SUGGESTED CONDITIONS

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends condition requiring the stopping up of the existing vehicular access to the site, should application be approved.

Evaluation

Application relates to a rectangular site situated approximately 45 metres north of the junction of New Street with Trafalgar Road, coverage on the eastern side of New Street. Site has significant building, single and two storeys in height reflecting the former use of the site as a laundry. Immediately abutting to the north is an end terrace being part of a row of traditional dwellings set hard up against the back of footpath. Immediately abutting to the south is a semi-detached dwelling no. 69 New Street being one of a pair of cottage style dwellings set back from New Street by 11.5 metres. The area generally is characterised by established traditional Victorian terraced dwellings with the site itself being close to the Chapel Street car park and town centre.

Detailed consent is sought for a semi-detached pair of two storey three bedroomed houses located to the front of site a minimum distance of one metre to maximum distance of two metres off the back edge of footpath. The pair of houses is split on the ground floor by a one metre wide covered footway which provides access to the rear of the site within which is proposed a pair of single storey properties providing two bedroom accommodation. The pair of houses is to be provided with small garden areas, 5 metres by 5.5 metres.

The proposed single storey dwellings to be set approximately 10 metres back from the rear of the proposed houses in a rectangular block 10 metres wide by 11.5 metres deep with further small garden areas set to the rear of the overall site. In the position indicated the pair of semi-detached houses to be set alongside property 63 New Street on its northern side with the rear elevation being in line with the front elevation of no. 69 New Street on the southern side. Dwellings to be constructed in facing brick with contrasting soldier course arches under artificial slated gabled roof in terms of the houses and hipped roof in terms of the single storey dwellings to the rear. Policy issues are itemised as follows:

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

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H5 - Infill Development.

H6 - High Density Residential Development.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

Members will appreciate that this is a brown field site within the older part of Newport town centre and close walking distance from the High Street and bus station. As such it represents a site which national and local plan policies suggest should be developed at a high density to ensure efficient use is made of the site. However, Members will be aware of the difficulties which occur with regard to promoting zero parking high density schemes on brown field sites. Whilst each site should be looked at on its own merits the interpretation of policies when applied to these types of schemes causes some difficulty mainly in respect of the assessment of what constitutes good quality urban development as opposed to cramped development. General arrangement of dwellings clearly is one of a number of deciding factors and no set pattern is emerging as to what constitutes acceptable development of this type.

Similar considerations relate to zero parking schemes. Inevitably brown field sites such as this are situated in the older areas of the town where no off street parking exists and therefore the pressures on on-street parking are already at their maximum. Therefore there are difficulties in reconciling the need to make efficient use of these sites by encouraging a higher density with the inevitable result that this can only be achieved by reducing parking provision on site.

In this case it would appear that the site's former commercial use did not include parking provision or if it did it was at a minimal level. Therefore, in terms of parking policies when applied to this site there is unlikely to be much difference between the commercial user using the existing buildings in terms of pressures on parking than would be the case by the current proposal.

Letter has been received from the applicants expressing concern at the delay in dealing with the application and requiring it to be determined. Applicants were of the view that the scheme was acceptable in planning terms on the basis that "it makes full use of the site in line with current planning policies and would be of benefit to the amenities of neighbouring properties with the loss of industrial premises which currently exists on the site." Applicants have requested that their letter be read in full to Committee but a copy is attached for Members' information.

Having established through previous decisions the pattern of development which would likely be acceptable in terms of high density zero parking schemes the applicant was requested to consider a redesign of the scheme to achieve a better arrangement of dwellings than shown on the submitted plans. However, the applicants wish the application to be determined as submitted.

I consider that this site is suitable for redevelopment for residential purposes. Nor would I consider it unsuitable for zero parking although I acknowledge the difficulty of promoting a scheme which would quite clearly attract car ownership and increase the pressures on on-street parking in the area. It has been suggested to the applicants that they may consider providing one/two bedroom flats which have been identified as the greatest need in the recent Housing Needs Survey. Such a proposal would avoid the need to providing garden areas which could be replaced possibly by an internal courtyard with some linkage to some single storey structures towards the rear of the site. Such a type of development on a compact site such as this would create a communal area which would be overlooked by the properties which is much preferred by the Crime Prevention Officers than the current proposal which tends to isolate each unit, reducing the level of surveillance.

Whilst I recognise the views of the applicants and acknowledge the need to use urban land efficiently, this should not be at the expense of cramped development. I consider the proposal as submitted does represent a poor arrangement of dwellings resulting in a poor level of environment for occupiers of the units, particularly the single storey units to the rear, and as such is considered unsatisfactory. I therefore recommend refusal on those grounds although I accept the principle of developing this site in a fairly intensive form.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the view that although the site is suitable for high density development the arrangement of dwellings in the form proposed is considered to be unacceptable resulting in a cramped arrangement and therefore I recommend accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Brighstone Parish Council object to application, although I am advised that one Parish Councillor indicated a preference for two dwellings rather than three as applied for in the original application.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

AONB Officer raises no objection.

Environment Agency requests that any planning permission granted is subject to condition requiring all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings to be passed through trapped gulleys before being discharged to any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway.

A total of ten letters has been received from local residents, of which two households have each submitted two letters, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Overdevelopment, out of keeping with area, to detriment of tranquil residential bower.

Adverse impact on amenities of adjacent properties through increased traffic and noise.

Access to site considered to be far from adequate and does not include footpath for pedestrians - concerns raised with regard to adequacy of access for emergency vehicles.

Formation and use of access would create hazard for other highway users.

Pressure for future development of "Tanahlot" with third dwelling.

Bungalows may be converted to chalet bungalows at some time in future resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent properties.

Applicant's offer to retain trees along southern boundary of site may not be honoured by subsequent owners - removal would be to detriment of wildlife and bird population.

Current proposal is virtually a replica of the previous application omitting site for third bungalow but leaving space available for possible erection of this bungalow.

No parking available - could lead to visitors to development parking in Pippins Close.

Adequacy of drains is questioned - problems with system have caused flooding during heavy/prolonged downpours.

Bungalow would be located directly over the main drain serving The Pippins and Rushcroft.

Evaluation

Application relates to irregular shaped area of land to rear of properties at head of cul-de-sac to Pippins Close and to rear, and in same ownership, of property fronting Main Road, Brighstone. Submitted plans show that proposed dwellings would be accessed over driveway off Pippins Close.

Application seeks outline planning permission for two bungalows with siting and access to be considered at this stage and all other detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval.

Outline planning permission was granted in March 1998 for dwelling and garage with access off Pippins Close. This application involved area of land forming part of current application site, although slightly smaller in size.

Outline planning permission for three chalet bungalows and garages with access off Pippins Close was refused in August 2001 on grounds that proposal would result in undesirable arrangement of dwellings, likely to prejudice the amenities and privacy of neighbouring properties. Application involved larger area of land than current proposal.

Site is located within development boundary for Brighstone as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and is within 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.

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

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

H5 - Infill Residential Development.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Determining factors in considering current application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether development of site with two bungalows as proposed would be compatible with the existing development in the area or would detract from amenities of neighbouring properties.

Having regard to location of site, within development boundary, and previous planning approval, albeit for a single dwelling, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to development of the site for residential purposes. Furthermore, in this instance, I consider that the footprint of the proposed bungalows and plot sizes are compatible with the neighbouring properties, particularly those in Pippins Close. Therefore, I do not consider that development of site with two bungalows would represent overdevelopment.

Previous planning application involved construction of three chalet bungalows and it was considered that the arrangement of dwellings, and particularly the position of the eastern most dwelling, sandwiched between and close to rear boundaries with both the property in Pippins Close and the dwelling which fronts the main road, would detract from the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. In particular, previous proposal involved construction of chalet bungalows and, having regard to position and layout of dwellings, it was considered that provision of accommodation at first floor level would be likely to result in overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent properties.

I consider that current proposal, involving omission of the dwelling on the eastern side of the site and provision of single storey accommodation only, overcomes these objections. Furthermore, I consider that, should Members be minded to approve application, permission could be subject to a condition restricting accommodation to single storey only, thereby preventing conversion of roof space to provide additional accommodation at first floor level.

Whilst current proposal effectively involves omission of third plot, which was proposed as part of previous scheme, without significantly altering layout and it could be argued that this would not preclude addition of further dwelling at some future date, this would of course require submission of a further application. In this respect, I consider that there would be grounds to resist such a proposal by reason of the position of the dwelling and its relationship with adjoining properties which would be likely to detract from the amenities of those dwellings. Furthermore, such a proposal would significantly reduce the amenity space to Tanahlot leaving the property with very little rear garden area.

Concern has been expressed in letters of representation that, whilst applicant has offered to retain trees adjacent southern boundary, this may not be honoured by future owners. However, retention of these trees can be ensured by imposing a condition, should Members be minded to approve the application.

With regard to concern expressed that access is inadequate to serve the development, particularly for emergency vehicles, it should be noted that no objections have been raised by the Highway Engineer or the Fire Safety Officer. In particular, whilst previous application for three dwellings was refused, comments were received from Fire Safety Officer advising that development was satisfactory. In this respect, I am satisfied that access to within the required distance from the dwellings for a fire appliance can be achieved. Whilst access does not include a designated footpath, provision of a private driveway with shared surface is considered to be acceptable to serve two dwellings.

Following consultations with Southern Water, I am advised that they have only one recorded sewerage incident in Pippins Close which involved a blockage on the private system and that this should not be regarded as an indication of lack of sewer capacity. Furthermore, they advise that they would not normally undertake a sewer capacity check for just two dwellings. In any event, I do not consider that the proposal will result in significant increase in discharge to the drainage system in the area. Southern Water have also confirmed that there is no public sewer running through the site and the route of any private drains through the site is not known. However, this would not preclude development of the site and it would be possible to build over private drains. Alternatively, it may be necessary for the developer to divert the drain. In any event, this may require the consent of the owners of the properties which the drains serve.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that development of site with two bungalows represents an acceptable form of development which would not detract from character of locality or amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposed access arrangements are satisfactory to serve development of two bungalows.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Lake Parish Council object to the development on grounds that proposal is contrary to Policy L4 which land is specifically allocated as open space; the loss of open space which has been used as a sports field for approximately 50 years; that the total area of open space within Lake Parish is below the accepted criteria and the proposal would reduce it further.

Sport England objects to the proposal that the development would lead to the permanent loss of part of a playing field. In support of their objection Sport England's policy states that:-

"Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless, in the judgement of Sport England, one of the specific circumstances applies."

In this case, Sport England are of the opinion that the proposal would result in the loss of a significant area of the playing field. This, as a result, will probably mean that a playing pitch of appropriate size could not be accommodated on the site, although this is not clear. The site was last used as a full sized football pitch, and any pitch must therefore be between 90 and 120 metres in length and between 45 and 90 metres in width. This would be further governed by the local league standards.

In addition the application does not make it clear whether a football pitch would be retained on site, simply stating that the area would be donated to the local Parish Council. No robust evidence has been submitted to indicate that there is no demand for such a pitch and there is of course no guarantee that the Parish Council would wish to use it as such. Furthermore, the proposal makes no reference to what compensatory investment in sport would be made to counter the loss of the playing field whether on site in terms of changing facilities etc or off site through investment in a nearby new or improved sports facility or sports development programme.

One letter signed by twelve signatories objecting to the development on grounds of access to and from the site off The Fairway and resultant hazards to school children and other pedestrians as well as motor vehicles. Letter suggests that the site should be restored to community use.

One further letter of objection signed by four persons objecting to the development on grounds of congestion and excess speeds of traffic along The Fairway; access adjoining a public footpath. Stating that the land is located within three heavily populated estates and should remain as public recreational land.

Three letters of objection from local residents on grounds that the land should remain as recreational use, and on grounds of detriment to petition containing 510 signatories objecting on similar grounds as above, traffic safety.

Evaluation

Fairway Park as Members will recall, is an almost square tract of land about 120 metres by 120 metres located on the west side of The Fairway and bounded by the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Roseway, The Fairway, The Medeway and, on its southern side, by the footpath linking The Fairway with The Medeway, just to the north of the properties in Fairmead Close.

The site is unused and overgrown. It was last used as a football ground about eight to ten years ago and has been the subject of planning applications for alternative uses, more recently in July 1997 an outline application for residential development of 38 dwellings was refused. In December 1999 an application for its use as a woodland cemetery was refused. In July 2001 an outline application for a tennis and racquets club was refused. In March of this year planning permission was refused for the development of the site as a garden centre and in May an outline application for a ski centre including a dry ski slope was also refused.

All of the above applications have been refused either on grounds of loss of open space or loss of a playing field or both. Of those refusals of planning permission, the outline for residential development of 38 dwellings and the outline application for the tennis and racquets club were both appealed. Both appeals were dismissed, again both due to the loss of a playing field and/or the loss of open space.

The two applications for the garden centre and the ski centre were the subject of appeals but those have subsequently been withdrawn.

This application seeks outline consent for ten bungalows and the demolition of the dwelling located on the north side of the access to enable an access improvement to be made and for the rebuilding of the demolished dwelling.

Although access is to be considered at this stage, all other matters are reserved for future consideration but the detailed layout plan shows the intention to run the access parallel to the southern boundary from the existing access point in its south eastern corner toward the western boundary where it would turn almost right angles with the ten new detached bungalows backing on to properties in the Medeway and having garden depths of between approximately 29 metres and 39 metres in length.

The plan and accompanying documents stress that the remainder of the land, excluding that area covered by the access road and the ten bungalows shall be gifted to the Parish Council if the application for the ten new bungalows and the rebuilding of the bungalow at the entrance is approved.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle and matters relating to the adequacy or otherwise of the access.

This land is shown within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as being scheduled for open space. Its development, or part thereof, for residential purposes is therefore contrary to that notation. The application site represents 45% of the total land area of the former Fairway Park football ground and consequently the site remaining is approximately 55% with overall dimensions of 85 metres in width and 110 metres in length. The proposal therefore represents a significant loss of land formerly used as a playing field, almost half of the site. Such a proposal is, again, contrary to local and national policy regarding open space and playing fields.

Despite the offer of the site remaining being given to the Parish Council for recreational open space the loss of 45% of the land to development would probably render the remaining land inadequate in area to be used as a formal playing pitch. Although, physically, the remaining

land could contain a smaller pitch at the lower limits of dimensions, such a facility would be virtually useless if such a provision were also to incorporate adequate changing, parking and viewing facilities.

In addition although I do not consider that the resumption of use of this land for a playing field would be incompatible with the adjoining residential uses, in my opinion, the two uses, served off the same access road would not be compatible. The dwellings would be served by a new access road and facing on to a playing pitch. It is probably the case that, in the form the application takes, the access road would be used for spectator, player and visiting team parking as the remaining land would be insufficient to make such provision.

In 1988 planning permission was refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed on a proposal which sought to erect four bungalows on the southern part of the site, a proposal which would have resulted in the loss of a comparatively smaller section of the site than that currently proposed. That decision was taken under a previous policy document, the South East Wight Local Plan at a time when policies in respect of the loss of playing fields and open space were not so strong as they are now. Consequently this larger proposal, viewed in the light of a stronger presumption in the retention of open space and playing fields is more unacceptable.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of the site as a garden centre would result in the loss of a valuable playing field contrary to Policy L4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and contrary to national planning guidance as contained in PPG17.

               Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Building Control comments to follow.

One letter of support from neighbouring property stating:

"Having viewed the plans and discussed them with our neighbours, we are both happy with the proposed depth and height of the extension, and feel that the proposed extension, will not only enhance our neighbours property, but also, will offer us additional privacy from our side kitchen door, which currently, when left open, looks immediately on our neighbours rear patio area and thus by extending the rear of their property to around our own property's rear building line, will mean that we will actually have more privacy than we do presently and therefore both our families will benefit from this proposed extension."

Objection from neighbouring property stating:

"My wife and I have been appalled and distressed at the potential loss of amenity, privacy and sunlight from the nature and sheer scale of this proposal and wish to      lodge a protest in the strongest possible terms."

Objector has instructed Chartered Surveyor to formally object plus six further letters objecting on grounds of:

out of scale to adjacent properties in locality

loss of privacy, amenity and sunlight

affect on character of area

no reference to issues compounding the instability of the ground conditions as a result of further intensive development

drainage implications in terms of surface water.

plans do not show neighbouring property

access difficulties during construction and potential damage of private road

affect on property value

restrictive covenants

request for Members to carry out site visit.

Further letter from Chartered Surveyors on behalf of neighbouring property stating revised design and detail of roof make absolutely no difference to the nature and scope of earlier objections. If anything, changes exacerbate the problems.

Evaluation

Application relates to detached property situated on eastern side of Westwood Road.

Application seeks consent to build two storey extension to rear of property measuring 9.740 wide by 4.500 deep having a hipped roof set 0.70 metres below the existing roof. Addition would provide new sitting room and extension to kitchen and breakfast room at ground floor with three bedrooms over. Proposal incorporates one high level window on west elevation at first floor and two at ground floor and on the eastern side elevation one high level window at first and one window at ground floor.

Relevant policies in respect of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered to be Policy D1 (Standards of Design), Policy H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Dwellings). Main planning considerations are whether or not the extension is considered appropriate in terms of size and design and impact of proposed extension on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers.

Proposed extension does cover full width of existing dwelling and would result in relatively significant addition to property. Revised plans have incorporated better designed roof to tie in with original property.

It is relevant that the neighbouring property to the west projects further to the rear than the application site and does have windows in side elevation facing proposal. However occupant supports proposal and I am of the view that given distance from boundaries proposal presents minimal impact and a refusal on grounds of loss of privacy would not be sustained.

With regards concerns of neighbouring property to east, given distance form boundaries and due to high level siting of windows at first floor side elevation proposal presents minimal impact.

In considering affect on amenities and character of the area in general, application is at the rear of a large plot which can accommodate an extension of this size.

Potential damage to private road and restrictive covenants would be civil matter.

In view of above comments, I consider that scale and design of extension on balance is acceptable in design and location, presenting minimal impact on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered proposal accords with policies D1 and H7 in respect of scale and design and effect on surrounding residential properties.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

With regard to originally submitted scheme six letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Loss of trees.

Potential problems relating to drainage of site.

Potential land stability problems adjoining stream and excessive water flow.

Overdevelopment of site.

Inaccuracy in respect of boundary identification.

Proximity of new development to existing residential property to north west.

Inappropriate increase in traffic movement onto and from busy road.

Discrepancy in respect of parking allocation.

Following readvertisement two further letters were received again repeating original objections with one writer requesting that site be visited by Members prior to making decision.

Southern Water advise that the point and details of proposed connection to public sewer will require their formal approval. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of site. No surface water should be discharged into public foul sewer as this could cause flooding to downstream properties. Their records show a number of sewerage incidents in the area but they were all blockages mainly on private drainage. This would not indicate a lack of capacity in the area.

Contaminated Land Officer advises that it will be satisfactory to undertake investigations regarding contamination after issue of planning consent. He therefore recommends appropriate conditions should be attached to any consent requiring site investigation report and remediation where necessary prior to development commencing on site.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle to proposal but recommends condition requiring appropriate investigation to assess degree of contamination of site and determine water pollution potential. They recommend further condition that foul drainage from development shall connect to mains foul sewer.

Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has inspected site and advises that there is one tree worth retaining in south western corner of site.

Following substantial consultation with Highway Engineer further detail recently submitted with application has enabled Highway Engineer to support application subject to imposition of standard conditions.

Evaluation

Application relates to part of former garage workshop associated with Binstead Garage which itself is situated on northern side of Binstead Hill approximately midway between junctions with Pitts Lane and Brookfield Gardens. North western corner of application site is bounded by a stream and access is gained over existing forecourt area which is shared with garage and a residential property rear of garage premises.

Whilst site itself is not allocated for any specific purpose within UDP, site does lie within development envelope for Ryde and there is therefore no objection in principle to residential redevelopment of this brown field site.

Application seeks consent to demolish part two part single storey workshop premises (now vacant) situated to side (north west) of existing Binstead Garage complex.

Development would comprise nine dwellings in two terraces with each dwelling having main orientation facing north east - south west. Development proposes five, three bedroom units and four, four bedroom units with parking for some nine vehicles indicated alongside entrance to site.

Turning to more detailed aspects of proposal, whilst two end terrace dwellings are located close to western boundary of site where it adjoins the stream orientation of these properties is such as to prevent any direct overlooking, presenting gable ends to existing development in the Old Forge Close. Distances to remaining properties fronting Binstead Hill and rear of garage are considered sufficient to enable proposed development to be built without having undue adverse impact on surrounding residential occupiers.

Given previous industrial use of site comments of both Environment Agency and Council's Contaminated Land Officer are appreciated and imposition of conditions can satisfactorily overcome this particular constraint. Provision of nine off street parking spaces complies with adopted zonal parking policy for this location.

Whilst existing workshop complex is surrounded by trees/shrubs such specimens are not considered worthy of retention apart from one sycamore in south western corner of site.

It is expected that development will connect to foul sewer system whilst in terms of surface water runoff point should be made that previous impervious surface area of development is significantly less than is currently the case in respect of the industrial workshops and hard surfacing areas. Therefore, surface water runoff from the site should be reduced to reflect the reduction in impervious surfaces. This will drain to the existing stream and in view of the reduced flow from the site no objection can be raised on this particular issue.

With regards highway matters agent advises that when active workshops were creating approximately 50 vehicle movements a day with staff, deliveries and vehicle testing and it is unlikely that proposed development of nine houses will significantly impact on that previous situation. Following substantial negotiation with Highway Engineers Department revised plans have been submitted which satisfy Highway Engineer. This information covers issues of kerbs, gradient, surface treatments and surface drainage and Highway Engineer recommends appropriate conditions to cover these matters.

Development represents opportunity in seeking to remove non-conforming user which, given usage involved, had potential to impact on surrounding residential occupiers and whilst agent indicates that some five members of staff were previously employed loss of relatively small scale employment user is not considered to be sufficiently significant to raise a policy objection in respect of seeking to retain employment land.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations described in the Evaluation section of this report the redevelopment of this urban brown field site is considered appropriate and consistent with UDP policy concerning housing, access and design policies D1, D2 and TR7.

               Recommendation - Approval (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer comments to follow.

Shanklin Town Council opposed to application on grounds of loss of retail unit in the High Street.

Evaluation

The application relates to a property sited within Shanklin town centre boundary but outside any retail only frontage. Permission is sought for change of use from opticians to estate agents. There are a mix of uses in the area including newsagents shop to the north, tea room to the south and residential to the rear. No exterior alterations are proposed other than new signage.

Policy D1 (Standards of Design), Policy R6 (Areas Outside Retail-Only Frontages), Policy G10 (Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses), of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant. Main planning consideration therefore relates to impact on the amenities of locality and promotion of vitality and viability of town centre.

With regard concerns relating to loss of retail, the site is outside any retail only frontage area and therefore refusal on these grounds would be unsustainable. This is a busy town centre location and government advice seeks to promote the viability and vitality of town centres with a mix of uses.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations, I am of the view that the proposal is for an appropriate use and appropriately sited, accords with policy and recommend accordingly.

1.    Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

2.    Recommendation - that covering letter be sent with decision advising new signage may require advertisement consent.

Representations

Newchurch Parish Council confirm that I have received 8 objection letters. Point out that part of the development is outside of the designated development envelope and therefore contrary to policy, that the design of the proposal is out of keeping and contrary to other UDP policies.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Contaminated Land Officer recommends conditions if approved. Six letters of objection from local residents on grounds of excessive density of development; inappropriate design of three storey accommodation; overlooking and loss of privacy; traffic dangers including dangers to pedestrians with an inadequate access; drainage off land is of paramount importance suggesting that the land susceptible to flooding. One writer specifies no objection to the barn conversion but states that an excessive number of dwellings, especially on the frontage are proposed and that the development is likely to attract standing vehicles in the highway thus creating even more traffic danger.

Evaluation

Bartletts Service Station occupies a roughly triangular shaped site which is located on the south east side of High Street, Newchurch just to the south of its junction with Palmers Lane, the road leading from High Street to Skinners Hill and Hill Top. The site has an area of approximately 0.25 hectares, is presently occupies by three main buildings and the site is used as a filling station, car repair facility and crashed vehicle storage area. The land falls substantially from the Winford Road frontage down to the rear of the site but the site is still significantly higher than Palmers Lane. There is a frontage to the main road of almost 60 metres with a similar frontage to Palmers Lane. A good proportion of the site is already hard surfaced and is occupied by one large steel framed clad workshop building close to the southern boundary, a stone barn towards the north eastern corner and an artificial stone, two storey office and workshop building close to the forecourt at the western extent and frontage of the site. To the north of the site is a two storey, white painted rendered pair of dwellings and, on the opposite side of Palmers Lane, assorted farm buildings whilst to the south is Greentiles Nursery, a complex of glasshouses but, just to the south of the forecourt building is a modern bungalow in artificial stone.

In January of this year planning permission was granted for the relocation of the car repair garage to Langbridge Farm.

This application seeks permission for the residential redevelopment of the garage site incorporating conversion of the stone barn, (which already has within it a cottage at the eastern end) into an additional two units; two terraces of three dwellings fronting the main road and a further three, detached properties situated towards the rear of the site. These properties are proposed to be serviced by a single access, situated towards the north eastern end of the frontage via a single, shared surfaced access road leading to a parking and turning area almost central in the site.

The plans show the stone barn converted into three properties each having living room and kitchen on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom on first floor. It involves both internal and external alterations within the existing envelope of the building with the insertion of several windows in each of the north west and south east elevations with new windows inserted in the south west elevation.

Revised plans show the two terraces contain three dwellings in each, the blocks being slightly staggered but the units are in the same plain in their respective blocks. Front elevation shown to be fairly simple and traditional in its appearance, showing two storeys of accommodation only, rear face, of less traditional appearance incorporating small lean to roof over extended ground floor with dormers in the rear plane. Accommodation to comprise kitchen, hall and living room on ground floor with two bedrooms and a bathroom on first floor and single bedroom with en-suite within roof space.

The three individual dwellings sited towards the rear of the site all facing in a north westerly direction. These three, two storey properties are shown to comprise kitchen and living room with integral garage on ground floor with four bedrooms, with one en-suite and the bathroom on first floor. All of the buildings have simple ridged roofs and one of the three detached dwellings at the back of the site have pitched porch roofs.

The application plans also show there to be eighteen car parking spaces within the development, all accessed from the single entrance with a 1.8 metres footway provided across the whole of the sites frontage. Each of the terraced properties fronting the main road would be accessed via a pedestrian gate only, each has a small rear yard. Each of the end of terraced properties has a chimney to ridge level with the three detached properties at the rear of the site.

The determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, the proposed development represents the redevelopment of a brown field site within a village setting following the removal of the established motor garage to an alternative site. Half of the application site is outside the designated development envelope but it is occupied for activities associated with the garage including the storage of vehicles and a large workshop and has been so used for some years. Bearing in mind the development does not propose to extend the site further than the existing boundaries, I do not consider approval for redevelopment of the whole of the site should be withheld in principle.

In design terms, negotiations have taken place and revisions to the scheme have been received and, in the main, the development gives the appearance of two storey properties only. It is acknowledged that the roof space would be used for an additional bedroom, but this is not apparent from the front elevations as only a dormer window appears in the planes of the roof. Revised plans also include changes to the detailing, staggering the terraces so that they do not appear as one long block, incorporating brick quoins and feature brick courses stone and timber weatherboard under tiled roof. The three detached properties have been revised to incorporate similar finishes except none are finished in weatherboarding.

The site has an area of approximately 0.25 hectares and therefore, with the development of 12 units, this gives an overall density of approximately 48 units per hectare which falls within the anticipated range of 30-50 to the hectare, all be it close to the upper limit. The density is increased by the inclusion of the two terraces and the conversion of the existing barn. However, Newchurch has much diversity of architecture and materials that the density and arrangements, the inclusion of terraces and detached properties will not conflict with the character of the village.

The site presently has a wide, open forecourt where vehicles enter and leave across most of the frontage thereby creating a substantial hazard to motorists. The intention is to provide a single point of access where visibility is maximized, that position being towards the north eastern corner of the frontage. Highway Engineer is satisfied that the access, its visibility and parking and turning arrangements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the site and recommends conditions if approved.

Turning to the effect on adjoining properties, as this site is bounded by two road frontages and the barn to be converted is already there, only one property is directly affected, the bungalow adjoining to the south west. However, due to the position, orientation and level of the proposed dwellings overlooking is not likely to be great.

Bearing in mind the site is a brown field site mostly within the development envelope its redevelopment for residential purposes will result in the removal of a use which has, in the past, conflicted with the enjoyment of adjoining residential properties, and its re-establishment on a more suitable site, further from residential properties.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given consideration to the factors contained in the Evaluation section above, the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is consistent with UDP policies, with national planning policies regarding the use of land within development envelopes and the re-use of brown field sites.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Brading Town Council object on grounds of proposed development would set a precedent for development of a similar nature to the surrounding buildings.

Out of scale to original building and gives appearance of being top heavy.

Two letters of representation summarised as follows;

Loss of privacy; overlooking of bedroom window at first floor level and patio at front of house.

Lack of dimensions on submitted plans and question need.

The exceptional view from this plot can as easily be seen from a bedroom window as from a balcony.

           Inappropriate, unneighbourly.

No objection to proposed window on southern elevation.

Evaluation

This application relates to a detached two storey dwelling currently under construction situated on the western side of New Road elevated above road level. Planning permission was granted for the dwelling in March 2002 subject to conditions.

The application seeks consent for the formation of a balcony at first floor level on the front elevation of the property. The balcony projects 0.9 metres forward of the front elevation, is a maximum of two metres wide with balustrading to a height of 1.1 metres with opaque glass screens on both side elevations to a height of 1.8 metres. The balcony has been partially constructed. In addition retrospective consent is sought for a window at ground floor on the southern elevation to provide additional light to the dining room.

Relevant policies are D1 (Standards of Design) and H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Main planning considerations are potential impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by adjoining property occupiers and whether design is acceptable.

Regarding impact on neighbouring properties, main area of concern relates to the potential loss of privacy and overlooking. In assessing the proposed balcony, the limited depth and width, the provision of screening on the side elevations, the siting in relation to neighbouring properties is relevant. It is also relevant that the neighbouring property to the north's only garden amenity space is at front of property. Potential overlooking of this amenity space has been considered.

In respect of the balcony, I am of the view that the existing approved french doors when compared with proposal present minimal impact in potential for overlooking. With regard the design of balcony, I am of the view that there is no adverse impact on the street scene and that the design is sympathetic in scale and materials to the dwelling.

With regard to the window at ground floor on the southern elevation, I am satisfied that this aspect presents no adverse impact.

It is appreciated that the retrospective nature of proposal does raise concern, but I am of the view that a refusal on grounds of overlooking or design would not be sustained on appeal.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and location and not presenting adverse impact on amenities of adjoining residential properties. Recommendation is made accordingly.

                       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved. Two letters of objection from adjoining neighbours on grounds of loss of privacy, over development, suggesting that the previous six, 2 bedroom dwellings is the same density as the current proposed four, 3 bedroom dwellings. Suggesting that single storey development would be more acceptable but two storeys would be unacceptable. That any windows in the southern elevation should be obscured glass. Raises objections to increased traffic and congestion in Beachfield Road.

Evaluation

In February of this year planning consent was refused for residential development on a scheme which showed six units of accommodation. It was refused on the basis of over development of the site with the likelihood of unacceptable loss of privacy to the adjoining properties and the development out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the area. The decision to refuse consent was taken following a company site inspection when it was apparent that the principle of development was felt acceptable but a lesser number of dwellings would be more acceptable.

This application now seeks consent for the erection of four dwellings, the plan shows a staggered terrace in the form of two pairs of linked semi-detached houses, the pairs being separated by a pair of garages with a further garage linked with the end properties. Although consent is sought for four dwellings and garages, all matters are reserved for future consideration.

As with the previous application the site is located at the rear of The Chester Lodge Hotel which, in turn, is located on the north west side of Beachfield Road almost centrally between the junction of New Street and Royal Crescent. The existing hotel is a two storey property with modern additions and an existing access located on its north east side of the frontage onto Beachfield Road. The rear wing of the existing property is a single storey flat roof structure with much of the area surrounding formally gardens but now overgrown, the single storey structure is used as living accommodation for the current operators of the hotel and does not comprise hotel accommodation.

The north western boundary is a brick and corrugated steel roofed depot and at both east and south west boundaries there are large properties running Royal Crescent and New Street respectively, properties which are comparatively close to the rear boundary.

Determination of this new application, as before, turns all matters of policy and principle, access, effects on adjoining properties and general density.

In principle turns the development does not result in the loss of hotel accommodation since the part of the building which is to be demolished is owners accommodation and therefore the development would not be contrary to policy T5.

Access to the site is proposed via that existing it does not result in loss of any existing car parking. It is apparent that the Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the previous scheme for 6 and as the scheme is now reduced to four units any possible previous reservations will also be lessened. Although it was a criticism of the previous scheme that insufficient space for turning large vehicles on site was not proposed, the current scheme allows for better access and turning facilities.

The reduction in units from six to four clearly is a reduction in density of dwellings per hectare but it is acknowledged that the units would be of greater accommodation, thus resulting in the same number of bedrooms on the development. However, the criticism previously levelled at the development involved the proximity of the properties to the boundaries and the resultant loss of privacy. In reducing the scheme, more space around the buildings results and the scheme does allow for the maintenance of privacy more easily. Gable end walls which would have inevitably contained windows can now be provided with only one window serving a landing which could be obscured glazed. The reduction in numbers would therefore enable greater distances between buildings and the common boundaries and the ability to lay out the site more acceptably. The principle of four units is therefore now considered acceptable and recommended for approval.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard to all material consideration as described in the evaluation section above, development to the site is proposed to be of an acceptable density with adequate access, utilising urban land more economically and consistent with policies D1 & D2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Totland Parish Council raise no objection.

Council's Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Officer raises the following points of objection:

Application site appears to have undergone change of use from agricultural land to form part of the domestic curtilage of Downs Cottage due to the part removal of the western boundary and the erection of a fence to the east of the proposal.

Any new buildings within the AONB and Tennyson Heritage Coast should be located within the original domestic curtilage of Downs Cottage and should be of an appropriate size.

Proposal is contrary to policies C2 (AONB) and C4 (Heritage Coast) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Agent has confirmed that the agricultural store is required to store tools and equipment to upkeep the agricultural land.

Evaluation

This application is for a proposed agricultural store and implement shed. The site is accessed via an approximately 240 metre long track off Moons Hill. Site shown to be within AONB and Tennyson Heritage Coast.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the proposed agricultural store and implement shed will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area designated as AONB and Heritage Coast.

Site is shown to be outside of the development envelope for Totland as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan where it is confirmed that the application site is within AONB and the Tennyson Heritage Coast. Relevant policies are therefore considered to be C1, C2, C4 and G5. C1 refers to protection of landscape character and states that applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and the local distinctiveness of the area. C2 refers to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and states that within the AONBs planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and specifically involve the maintenance or development of agriculture and be for the benefit of the local rural economy and the people who live there. C4 refers to Heritage Coast and states that development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast. G5 relates to development outside defined settlements and states that development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale and connected with agriculture.

The site is in an isolated position underneath dense trees. Members may recall the application that was approved under the delegated procedure in 1998 for a replacement dwelling at Downs Cottage and the revised scheme that was approved under the delegated system 2001. The proposed agricultural store and implement shed is shown to be 10 metres by 7.5 metres with a height to ridge of 4.5 metres adjacent to the previously approved dwelling that is now under construction. The store is shown to be constructed of cedar boarding under a natural slate roof.

Whilst recognising the views of the AONB Officer, I believe that the site is adequately screened and will therefore not be detrimental to the overall character of the AONB. In terms of the alleged change of use of the land, the agent has confirmed that there is no intention of the applicants to extend the current domestic curtilage boundary of Downs Cottage. Whilst they appreciate that this area has been fenced off this has been implemented in order to keep the animals out of the building site and the builders space to work while the replacement dwelling at Downs Cottage is under construction.

I am of the opinion that once the construction of Downs Cottage is completed the status of this piece of land can be monitored to ensure that a change of use has not taken place.

Taking the above points into consideration, I appreciate that there will be some effect on the AONB and Heritage Coast, this however I consider to be neutral given the siting, scale and the natural screening that exists.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed agricultural store and implement shed is acceptable in this location and the overall impact on the character of the area will be neutral. Proposal accords with policy.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Town Council recommend refusal as the land is considered unsuitable for further development.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if application is approved.

Coastal Manager indicates that property lies within an area that has been identified as being suitable for development and subject to drainage being diverted to existing sealed systems is satisfied that development can take place without any adverse impact on adjacent properties or the neighbourhood generally.

County Archaeologist indicates that site is within an area of archaeological importance and very close to several sites recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Record. In order that archaeological features may be adequately recorded it is recommended that any approval is subject to conditions in accordance with guidance in PPG16 to the effect that no development should take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological observation in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The application was considered by the Architects Panel who commented in respect of the originally submitted plans that they were disappointed about the submitted details which did not relate the proposed development to the nearby properties or give sufficient information regarding the landscaping and levels in relation to the road. The design did not reflect the local character or materials and indeed was "any house anywhere". Following submission of additional details showing the relationship between the proposed property, the landscaping and the site levels, together with revisions to the design details, the panel again commented that the design changes were minimal and did not address the previous issues raised by the panel.

Seven letters have been received from local residents making comments and objections regarding the proposals. The matters raised are summarised below;

The submitted details are for full planning permission and are significantly different to the illustrative details previously given outline approval, the site is now within a designated Conservation Area and is outside the development envelope as identified in the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed dwelling would be out of character with the existing Victorian properties within the Conservation Area and identified within the Countryside Design Summary.

The trees on the site are an essential part of the character of the area and provide screening for the development. Some of the trees are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. Concern is expressed regarding the effect of the proposed development on the trees and in particular works identified in the tree report and damage which may be caused by the proposed drainage and access works to the site.

Concern expressed regarding the safety of the access to the site at a busy road junction.

Concerns expressed regarding site stability with particular reference to drainage and foundation works.

Concern expressed regarding effect on badger setts within the site.

Two letters confirm no objection to the principle of residential development on this site.

Evaluation

This application is for full planning permission and relates to a plot of land to the western side of Upper Garden Lodge on the southern side of Park Avenue/Steephill Road and virtually opposite the junction with Castle Road.

The site is irregular in shape and comprises a raised plateau with steeply sloping well treed banks to the southern western and northern edges with a timber fence separating the site from Upper Garden Lodge to the east.

The site is situated within a designated Conservation Area and Upper Garden Lodge, together with the complex of buildings including the Clock House and former stables consist of a Victorian group of buildings of distinctive design and appearance constructed of red brickwork and stonework with pebble dash rendering and applied timber decoration with decorative barge boards and gabled roofs.

The site and adjacent buildings are well screened by the existing trees and are accessed via a narrow unmade track leading to the rear (south) of the properties adjacent to the park. This access also serves a separate detached dwelling of different design (Glenhill) which is situated to the south east of the site. There is a deep ravine with a stream running along the southern edge of the site, part of which would be infilled above the existing pipes to form the parking and turning area.

The application details include a tree and landscaping report indicating that the majority of the trees on the banks which surround the site would be retained and some works have been specified to reduce trees close to the dwelling itself. This report has been passed to the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer and any further comments will be reported.

The application has also been supported by a structural engineer's report adding to a previous report prepared in 1998 to support the outline planning application. The report concludes that the previous information regarding site stability is still relevant and the development could be carried out without adversely affecting the overall site stability. This has been confirmed by the Building Control Officer and the Coastal Manager.

Members will note that outline planning approval for a dwelling was granted subject to conditions on 4 January 2000 and follows previous outline planning permissions dating back to 1981 and subsequently renewed. The site has always been shown as outside but immediately adjacent to the development envelope boundary both in the previous local plans and in the Unitary Development Plan. I do not therefore consider there has been a significant change in circumstances in this respect.

Given the site history, I am of the opinion that the principle of residential development on this site has been established and the determining factors in respect of this application are therefore the size, location and design of the proposed dwelling together with any landscaping and screening forming part of the application.

The submitted details show construction of a detached two storey dwelling with a gabled roof situated towards the eastern end of the site relating to the adjacent property (Upper Garden Lodge). The dwelling would be situated on the level plateau on a relatively open part of the site allowing retention of the tree screen to the sloping banks. The submitted details do show some of the larger areas of shrubs within this plateau to be removed and some of the trees on the bank to be topped in accordance with the arboricultural report. The existing fence between the site and Upper Garden Lodge would be retained and access would be via the shared track leading to the southern side of Upper Garden Lodge and other properties forming this group.

The plans show a rectangular shaped dwelling with a projecting entrance porch comprising kitchen, dining room, lounge and study at ground floor level with four bedrooms and bathroom accommodation at first floor. The dwelling would be of fairly simple traditional design incorporating stone front and rear elevations with a brickwork to the side gables and a substantial brickwork chimney at one end. The gabled roof would have a Spanish slate finish and brick dressings are shown to the window openings and porch details.

As a result of the Architects Panel comments in respect of the original application, some discussions took place with the applicant's agent who indicated that the type of house proposed was specifically designed at the applicant's request to reflect the style and accommodation required. Some revisions were however submitted showing provision of decorative barge boards and improved chimney design together with overhanging eaves and verges to the roof to reflect details of the adjoining properties. Additional details have been submitted in respect of landscaping and showing the context of the adjoining buildings which indicate that the site is very well screened from the highway and public footpath areas and the building would only really be seen in detail from within the site or the adjoining properties.

Although the design of the dwelling is somewhat different to the ornate Victorian buildings nearby, it is not dissimilar to the more recent property known as Glencliff to the south and provided the existing tree screening to the site boundaries is maintained, it would not be in a prominent location or appear significantly dominant or out of character with the remainder of the Conservation Area.

I consider this part of the Conservation Area is characterised by detached properties constructed of traditional materials set in well landscaped and well screened grounds with only glimpses of the buildings obtained from the public areas. I do not therefore consider the proposed dwelling to be out of character in this context and although the concerns of the Architects Panel are noted, I do not consider these would be sufficient grounds to refuse the application, particularly bearing in mind the additional information which has been submitted showing the landscape screening, site levels and adjoining properties.

The site has been investigated by the Assistant Ecology Officer who indicates that although it is overgrown there is evidence of a badger sett on the south eastern edge of the flat area of the site at the top of the steep bank. There are two holes and several well worn tracks one with prints visible. As the development would be within 30 metres of this, a licence from English Nature will be required if the sett is still active. The applicant has received a report from The Badger Action Group indicating that English Nature would grant an Exclusion Licence to close the holes which do not appear to be used, so as to permit the development.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the size, scale and siting of the proposed dwelling are considered to be acceptable and would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the designated Conservation Area or the amenities of other properties in the locality. The simple traditional design and use of traditional materials and finishes would allow the building to blend into the landscape setting without being unduly dominant.

The site history including the recent granting of outline planning consent for residential purposes would establish the principle of residential development and the application is supported by a structural engineer's report and an arboricultural report as indicated. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies G2, D1, B6 and C1 and I therefore recommend the application for approval subject to conditions.

       Recommendation -    Approval (revised plans) (standard covering letter regarding ground conditions).

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Cowes Town Council have no objection to the erection of the industrial units but are concerned at the limited car parking availability.

Environmental Health Officer is concerned that proposal may have adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties and suggests two conditions, one relating to hours of operation and the second relating to hours of deliveries and despatches.

Highway Engineer was sufficiently concerned at original proposal to consider recommending refusal, but following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted, which he finds acceptable. He comments as follows:

"The revised plan notes that vehicle accesses will remain as 'existing crossovers maintained'. This appears to be sufficient to ensure that existing drainage conditions keeping highway water from entering the site are maintained.

Spoke to agent by telephone on Monday 1 July 2002 and suggested that lorry parking would be more appropriate placed against building units to facilitate easier turning. Agent agreed and advised that lorry parking shown was indicative at this stage."

Evaluation

Application relates to a rectangular concreted area to the north west of existing industrial building approximately 110 metres east of the junction of Prospect Road with Place Road. Overall the site measures approximately 50 metres in depth by 36 metres in width (frontage onto Prospect Road) and formerly accommodated an industrial building which had to be demolished following a serious fire. The site has a raised concrete area centrally located forming the major part of the site on which the original building formerly stood.

Adjoining to the north east is the Goods Vehicle Testing Station whilst adjoining to the south west and north is the industrial building formerly occupied by Vikoma with the northern boundary of that curtilage abutting properties which front Heathfield Road further to the north. Application site itself is separated from the rear boundaries of Heathfield Road properties by a small site which contains a number of storage buildings and has a double gated entrance either side of the raised concrete area which forms part of the current application site.

Following negotiations detailed consent is sought for the erection of 8 no. small individual industrial units measuring 7.6 metres by 9.2 metres having a pitched roof with curved eaves and a total height to ridge of 4.7 metres. Units to be finished in profiled metal cladding. Applicants have stated that all the units will be of the same finish with the same coloured cladding and will function as lock-up units which will be offered for either B1 industrial use or B8 storage use with the split likely to be 50/50. Applicants advise that where a B1 use is required then that unit will be provided with appropriate toilet facilities. All eight units will be erected as one single operation.

Following negotiations, with particular reference to Highway Engineer's comments, proposal has been reduced from ten to eight units with the resulting space providing lorry parking and turning to the rear and the provision of eight parking spaces in parallel to the front of the site and a further two parking spaces running parallel with Prospect Road, between which seven cycle racks have been indicated. Traffic will be managed by a one-way system with ingress being via the south eastern corner access and egress via the south western corner access. Proposal retains access to the land to the rear.

The only relevant history in respect of the application site itself is that it formed part of an overall approval granting consent for the retention of the car park on the site of the fire damaged building linked to retention of containers within servicing storage area plus proposed storage building to the rear of the application site itself.

Members will note from the previous approval that essentially this site has not been used directly for industrial use but has functioned mainly as a overspill car parking area. Although not identified as such in the UDP, this is considered to be an employment site and as such policies E3 and E6 would be appropriate.

Given the acceptability of the uses proposed, the only issue to be considered is the detail of building and servicing proposed. Preference would be for a simple substantial building on the site for an industrial use (B1) which would potentially provide the maximum level of employment. Proposal before Members, however, seeks consent for "lock-up" units which could, if used for B1, provide ideal starter units for small firms with the alternative use being for storage purposes which is unlikely to attract significant employment levels. Clearly this is a speculative exercise with the use being dictated on the basis of demand.

Obviously the B8 storage use would be the least preferred use although it would make better use of the site than the current car park.

I believe the applicants have addressed the concerns of the Highway Engineer, therefore, whilst I would prefer a commitment to these lock-up units being used for a higher level of employment I am satisfied that the proposal as submitted complies with the policies and would provide a greater opportunity to generate employment than the existing car park use.

In appearance terms, providing all the units are of the same material and same colour I consider they will sit reasonably satisfactorily within the site thus complying with policy D1 of the UDP. Buildings themselves will be bolted to the concrete surface and could be easily removed should market forces enable a more permanent single industrial unit to be placed on the site.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described above the proposed use of this site is considered acceptable in compliance with relevant policies with the site being an employment site. Applicant has satisfactorily addressed the concerns of the Highway Engineer in terms of parking provision, access for lorries and provision of cycle parking and therefore I am satisfied this proposal is acceptable and recommend accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

The Highway Engineer recommends that given the site is within zone 3 (0-75% max non-operational spaces) the maximum number of parking spaces required is 105 spaces.

Sport England object for the following reason: ’the proposal would result in the loss of playing fields land which could perform a playing pitch function. In the light of this and the lack of evidence of any other exceptional circumstances Sport England objects to the proposal on grounds that the development will lead to the permanent loss of part of the existing playing field.’

Environmental Health have no adverse comments on the basis that previously provided conditions are included in the consent.

Evaluation

This application relates to land to the rear of Downside Middle School with access to the north east of the school off the Furrlongs and seeks to renew a previous full permission granted in July 1997. Previous to that permission, an outline application with details of siting and access, was approved in 1996.

Revised plans have been requested to show a reduced number of parking spaces within the application site, the provision of cycle parking and additional landscaping within the parking area and between the rear of the proposed community centre and Garden Way.

In the time since the previous planning permission was granted, Downside Community Association have been concentrating their efforts on other projects such as cycle track and skate board facilities. They are about to start work on a business plan for the community centre in order secure funding. Although the project is intended for the residents of the Pan estate it is anticipated that the building will be shared with Downside Middle School.

In the adopted Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, the site is shown to be within an area set aside for educational purposes. Policy L6 ‘Loss of School Playing Fields’ seeks to ensure that school playing fields are retained and applications which result in the loss of school playing fields will only be approved if the use is associated with the educational function of the school or suitable replacement open space can be provided. Policy U3 ‘Appropriate location of education, community, social, health, welfare facilities and the promotion of sharing and dual use’ seeks to approve development for community uses which are located to meet the needs of, and to provide adequate access to, the community they are to serve. The community centre is intended for residents of the estate, Downside Middle School and its pupils and provides a variety of facilities from a multi-function hall, gym, snooker/pool room along with changing facilities, function and members rooms.

An objection was received from the Sport England relating to the loss of playing field. Sport England (as the Sports Council) originally objected to the outline application in 1996 on the basis that a playing field would be removed from use for sport, however they did not comment on the subsequent full planning application which was approved in July 1997. Under the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1988, the Local Planning Authority must consult the Secretary of State on any application they proposed to approve, against the advice of Sport England.

The application forms only part of the playing field to the rear of Downside Middle School and the site is currently used as an informal playing field for children at the school and is not marked out for formal sports activities. The land slopes away from the school towards Garden Way, consequently the land is not readily suitable for organised field sports. Existing netball courts to the west of the school and playing fields outside the curtilage of the school to the east of the application site will all be retained.

Reason for Recommendation

The proposal represents a community use specifically for residents of Pan estate and for the Downside Middle School and its pupils, as such it confirms with policy U3 of the Unitary Development Plan, however, it will also result in the loss of part a playing field and for this reason has attracted an objection from Sport England. Advice in PPG 17 ‘Sport and Recreation’ relating to the loss of playing fields advises (paragraph 42) that ‘playing fields should normally be protected, except where:

           Alternative provision of equivalent community benefit is made available.’

Taking both national and local planning policy into consideration, it is felt that the application should be given a further consent as it is intended for both educational and community uses and includes provision for indoor sporting facilities, however given the objection from Sport England it is necessary to consult the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1988 and to allow a period of 21 days to elapse before granting permission.

Recommendation – Approval (subject to the receipt of satisfactory

revised plans and reference to the Secretary of State under the Playing Fields Direction, 1998)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Shalfleet Parish Council raise no objection.

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

Comments have been received from English Nature. They advise that they have considered the application in terms of its possible impact on over wintering migratory birds flying to and from European sites within the Solent, in particular estuaries associated with Solent and Southampton Water SPA and RAMSAR site. They advise that the development does not affect any known migratory bird flight paths and is therefore unlikely to result in significant fatalities, through bird strike. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the application site is not in close proximity to any SPAs and RAMSAR sites, they advise that proposal is unlikely to have a significant affect on the interest features of any European sites within the Solent. They conclude that an appropriate assessment is not required in this instance.

Forty seven letters have been received from Island residents and one from a mainland resident objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Wellow Top Road is cycle route and much used by horse riders and walkers - not suitable for heavy vehicles and increased traffic which maintenance of mast would involve.

Alternative green measures for collection of energy would prove more economical and environmentally friendlier.

Wind speed data collected by anemometer should be made public.

Disbelief that data could have been lost - reason should be made public.

Mast has been in position for sufficient time to collect adequate data and establish suitability of site for wind turbines.

There is no justification for extension of inappropriate and unsightly use in important area of the Island's open landscape.

Original approval should not have been granted without a full EIA assessment, as called for by Countryside Agency on such proposals in environmentally sensitive areas - EIA should be undertaken before permission is renewed.

Such industrial machines/structures not compatible with the environment - will have devastating effect on most important part of British landscape.

Intrusive, contrary to aims of maintaining unspoilt character of Island.

Area is within a SSSI and has local nature conservation importance.

Anemometers and turbines have blighted scenic areas of the UK.

Authority must follow all government guidelines before committing any planning permission in AONB/SSSI.

Anemometer is the potential harbinger of wind turbines on the site which are most futile, ineffective system of generating electricity from renewable resources - tidal power considered to have more potential.

Wind turbines would have adverse effect on tourist industry in area popular for walking and cycling.

Site is not in area scheduled for development.

Site overlooked from downs which are AONB and include Tennyson Trail.

Wind farm would have adverse effect on nearby dwellings by reason of visual impact and noise.

Hazards to birds and other wildlife.

Wind on Island is not consistent enough to allow wind turbines to operate properly.

Is further period required because wind speeds have proved to be marginal during the initial test period?

Mast is hazard to light aircraft.

Energy demands could be satisfied by existing/approved wind farms on mainland.

Evaluation

Application relates to temporary anemometer mast located on gentle ridge, adjacent a north south field boundary fence, some 100 metres west of bridleway S19 and about 250 metres south of Hummet Copse. Site is some 550 metres north of the junction of S19 and Broad Lane and about one kilometre south of its junction with Wellow Top Road. The character of the surrounding area is open, rolling arable farmland, with few natural or manmade features, other than field boundary fences.

Planning permission is sought for renewal of temporary planning permission for 40 metre high anemometer mast. Details which accompanied original application showed mast to have diameter of 101.6 mm in diameter to a height of 20 metres reducing to 88.9 mm diameter to the top. Standard three cup anemometer and wind direction recorder are placed at top of mast which is supported by guy ropes attached at heights of 5.6 metres, 11.2 metres, 16.8 metres, 22.4 metres, 28 metres, 33.6 metres and 39.2 metres, all with a ground radius of 20 metres from its base.

National guidance on renewable energy is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 22 - Renewable Energy, which has a specific annex on wind energy. Whilst this advice is directed predominantly towards the siting of permanent wind turbine units, it does make the point that assessing sites will require use of historical meteorological data and information derived from anemometers placed on site. It further advises that the argument that granting permission for one development might lead to another application is unlikely to be sufficient reason for refusal.

Site is located outside any designated development boundary on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The Plan does not contain policies specific to the collection of data relating to wind resources on the Island but the following are considered relevant:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

U18 - Development of Renewable Energy.

The text relative to policy U18 confirms that a study of the range of renewable energy resources in the area carried out in 1993/94 showed that, for the Island, the greatest potential was considered to be wind resource but this was reduced by environmental constraints. The Council's view, stated in the UDP, is that the plan should reflect a positive approach to harnessing the generating potential from renewable energy sources in an environmentally acceptable way.

Determining factors in considering application are considered to be the visual impact of the mast and access considerations.

Number of letters of representation made reference to site being within the AONB and an SSSI. This information is incorrect and whilst mast is located close to an SSSI and SINC, it does not stand on land which is within an area designated for its ecological or landscape value. Furthermore, large number of letters contain comments which clearly object to wind turbines or wind farms. Current application is for retention of the anemometer mast and these comments are not considered relevant to determination of the submission. Furthermore, I would again draw Members attention to the advice contained in PPG22 which clearly advises that the argument that granting permission for one development might lead to another application is unlikely to be sufficient reason for refusal.

Mast is of slender design and, although supported by guy ropes, these are no more than 5 mm in diameter with maximum radius of 20 metres from base of mast, and I do not consider that structure has significant impact in the landscape. Although the mast is visible from the AONB to the south, I do not consider that it has adverse impact on the landscape character of this area. Mast is clearly of temporary nature, with no permanent fixing points in the ground, and it is understood that this type of structure can be dismantled and removed from site in a day.

Planning permission was granted for the anemometer mast in January 2001 for a temporary period expiring on 31 December 2001. In letter which accompanied current submission, applicants agent advises that, unfortunately, due to delays in procuring, erecting and commissioning the anemometer, it was not possible to commence collection of wind speed data until March 2001. In addition, it is understood that data was lost during August due to technical problems. I am advised that the technical problems involved a power supply failure to the instrumentation on the mast which occurred in early August 2001 and this was not picked up until a routine visit in November 2001, resulting in a complete loss of data over this period. I am further advised that the fault was rectified and the data collection system was modified to make it more robust with the addition of a solar powered battery charger and a mobile phone data communication link.

Applicant's agent advises that due to these technical problems, it has not been possible to collect a full year's worth of monitoring data which is considered essential for determining whether the area is likely to be viable for generating electricity from local wind resources. Therefore, applicant is seeking consent for extension of the temporary consent until 31 December 2002 and the agent indicates in the letter which accompanies the application that this additional period will ensure that sufficient wind data can be collected. In addition, he indicates that it is quite possible the anemometer will be removed and the site restored well in advance of the 31 December 2002 if his client determines that there is already sufficient information to facilitate its decision making process.

Number of objectors expressed view that full details of the technical difficulties experienced by the applicant should be made public before a decision is made. I consider that inclusion of the above explanation in this report, which is a public document, satisfies this request. Furthermore, I do not consider that the nature of the difficulties experienced warranted inviting further comments from third parties.

It has been suggested in letters of representation that the original permission should not have been granted without a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that this process should be undertaken prior to consent being renewed. Whilst it may be necessary to carry out an EIA for the erection of wind turbines, depending on the scale of the proposal and the sensitivity of the environment in which they are to be located, I am satisfied that the erection/retention of an anemometer mast in isolation would not necessitate submission of an environmental statement.

Concern has been expressed regarding level of traffic movements likely to be generated by the erection of the mast. Information which was provided in respect of original application indicated that mast would be transported to and from site by Landrover and that its operation and maintenance attracts minimal vehicle movements. The Highways Engineer considers there to be no highways implications from this development and I consider that traffic generation and use of Hampstead Trail in connection with this operation would only carry weight as a material consideration if there was a significant increase or change in the nature of the use. I do not consider that this is the case in this instance or that refusal of application on these grounds would be sustainable.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that an anemometer mast has minimal visual impact in the landscape and continued siting will not generate significant use of Hempstead Trail for construction or maintenance traffic.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer's written comments are awaited although he has indicated verbally that he will support the scheme subject to condition.

Letter received from applicant's agent who confirms that the owner of the site on whom notice has been served ratifies that all the land within the red line of the application is owned by them. Indeed they state that "...... throughout our early negotiations with the Highway Department it has always been considered as favourable access to my company's retained land fronting Gunville Road."

The re-advertised application has been the subject of seven letters of objection, six from residents of Kestrel Way including two from residents which immediately abut the site and a further letter from a resident of property which abuts the site on its northern side and fronts Gunville Road. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal provides insufficient space to accommodate for car parking spaces.

No provision for any casual or visitor parking spaces.

Proposal will result in noise and pollution to neighbouring properties.

Increased pressures on Kestrel Way which is a traffic calmed cul-de-sac functioning at full capacity.

Doubts that the existing concrete access way currently used as a pedestrian right of way is of sufficient width to serve as vehicular access.

Concern that use by vehicles will cause subsidence and damage boundary fences with there being no proposed protection measures.

Reference is made to an existing tree within the front garden area of the property in Kestrel Way which may cause visibility problems.

Kestrel Way already at saturation point in terms of on street parking which would be likely to restrict access to the proposed parking spaces.

Reference is made to conflicts which will occur between the users of the head of Kestrel Way for car parking and the need for this area to be kept clear to enable access to the four spaces.

Local resident states that the paved area at northern end of Kestrel Way is not part of the public highway and provides access to adjacent property 23 Kestrel Way and to garages. Concern that this additional use will cause wear and tear and who will contribute to repair works as necessary?

The difficulties being experienced to achieve suitable parking on this site is an indicator that the development itself represents overdevelopment.

It is considered that the developer should stick to the original scheme to both upgrade the footpath to provide landscaping and adhere to the original conditions which provided access off Gunville Road.

Concern that the four houses have already been constructed with there being some evidence of occupation on at least two of the units which would be contrary to the condition requiring the provision of the parking spaces prior to occupation.

Concern that there will be conflict between car users and pedestrians using the concrete access way as previously described.

The owner of the property which fronts Gunville Road alleges that one of the parking spaces "is on his land" and will prevent access to his driveway along with his neighbour's driveway.

Further traffic using Kestrel Way will cause dangers to children who use Kestrel Way for play (bikes, skateboards and ball games).

Concern that the bollards which have been strategically indicated on the submitted plans to prevent a through route from Gunville Road will be removed.

Builder should come to some agreement with the owner of the hedge which needs to be cut back to achieve visibility onto Gunville Road and therefore implement the previous approval and comply with the relevant condition.

Evaluation

Application relates to a development of four semi-detached houses located opposite the junction of Gunville Road with Alvington Manor View. The four dwellings form part of an almost completed development with the houses themselves being ready for occupation. The consent was subject of a number of conditions, the most relevant of which in respect of the current application are quoted as follows:

"No. 2. No dwelling shall be occupied until the existing hedgerow which forms the frontage boundary to the property Ronsuki has been removed and replaced by a close boarded fence or wall at a maximum height of one metre above highway level as indicated on the plan hereby approved. No structure, erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs etc exceeding one metre in height above existing road level shall be placed along this boundary.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in compliance with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

No. 3. Prior to commencement of work details of the design and construction of the access off Gunville Road, parking and turning area, proposed footpath link through to Kestrel Way together with details of disposal of surface water drainage from those areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Construction in accordance with the agreed details shall be completed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed development in accordance with Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan."

Having constructed the dwellings the problems in respect of complying with the above-mentioned conditions came to light. It is understood that no written agreement was ever reached with the neighbouring property owner in terms of the hedge and I am advised that the two parties have been unable to agree suitable terms to achieve compliance with the condition. This presents a problem for although the houses are complete and ready for occupation any such occupation would be contrary to the above-mentioned conditions.

The applicants have therefore pursued alternative parking arrangements which has resulted in the current application.

Initially, this application sought consent to remove the conditions altogether and seek consent for zero parking on the site. The applicant was advised that such a proposal would be unacceptable given the location of the site on the edge of town being more suburban in nature and therefore unsuitable for zero parking schemes. The site is situated within Zone 3 being a 0 - 75% of parking guidelines area. The applicants, having taken due notice of the advice being given, amended the application to continue to indicate four parking spaces in a revised layout and form in a similar position to the rear of plot 1, but more significantly accessed off Kestrel Way via the existing concrete access way which currently functions as an informal pedestrian right of way. The access way is between no. 23 Kestrel Way and the property Ronsuki which fronts Gunville Road.

In detail the application results in a substantial reduction of plot 1 with the introduction of three parking spaces abutting the northern boundary of the fence between plot 1 and plot 2. Further parking spaces have been indicated adjacent to the end elevation of plot 1 with turning space opposite. The access way has a minimum width of 3 metres to maximum width of 3.4 metres and widening even more where it abuts the adopted highway of Kestrel Way. The three parking spaces have been indicated slightly off the rear boundary of properties in Kestrel Way and to be provided with a 1.2 metre high close boarded fence along the rear of the parking spaces increasing to 1.8 metres in height where it encloses the garden area to plot 1.

The parking layout itself is considered satisfactory providing the relevant amount of space in terms of the parking space and turning area with the 1.2 metre high fence being suggested to ensure reasonable surveillance from the units which the parking space serves. Applicant has also indicated four bollards on the rear of the single parking space which are so positioned to ensure pedestrians and cyclists can gain access through the area as a pedestrian access to Kestrel Way and beyond, but will not allow vehicles to pass. Those bollards have been set approximately 8 metres off the back edge of carriageway which enables at least 6 metres gap along the boundary of Ronsuki enabling vehicular access to be achieved to that property. Applicants indicate a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence along the northern boundary which forms the southern boundary of the property Ronsuki in the area of the parking proposal. Finally, the applicant indicates that the existing access to be upgraded and constructed of reinforced concrete slab with a brick paviour finish.

Issues to consider are as follows:

Impact of the revised parking proposals on the general arrangement of dwellings as previously approved.

Likely level of environmental impact on existing properties resulting from the change in access arrangements to the parking spaces.

Suitability of Kestrel Way to service additional traffic that may be caused by the use of the four parking spaces.

In terms of the first issue, this proposal has effectively reduced the size of plot 1 but resulted in an increase in size of plots 2, 3 and 4. The reduction in size of plot 1 is unfortunate for the units themselves are good quality family homes, however, I do not consider the reduction to be sufficient to warrant a refusal in this case. There are probably a number of examples of plot sizes in the area not dissimilar to this and therefore I would not consider this to be a sustainable reason to refuse the application. If anything the parking spaces now indicated have a lesser impact, certainly on properties 21 and 22 Kestrel Way, than the previous approved scheme.

With regard to the second issue, the fact that there are only four parking spaces here will dictate the level of use and therefore the level of disturbance. I accept that the current concrete access way has only been used by pedestrians, cyclists or motor-cyclists in the past and this will result in the addition of four cars maximum using the access. The question whether this will result in an unacceptable conflict has to be considered. Again, I am doubtful that the regularity of use of the car parking area will be sufficient to create a level of disturbance through noise, fumes etc that could be deemed to be sustainable as a reason for refusal. I fully appreciate the concerns being expressed by residents of Kestrel Way, particularly the immediate neighbouring properties that are most affected, however, the situation has to be assessed entirely on its merits and the concerns raised, although understandable, are in my opinion of insufficient weight to warrant a refusal in planning terms.

Kestrel Way is one of a number of traffic calmed culs-de-sac within the Carisbrooke Park Estate. In terms of access for parking, Kestrel Way itself serves approximately 40 units and effectively this proposal merely adds a further four parking spaces which is well within the recognised limit that such shared surface culs-de-sac can serve.

Effectively this site represents the only remaining area of undeveloped land which formed the original Carisbrooke Park Estate area and it was always anticipated that this land would be served from the east rather than from the west (Gunville Road). I fully appreciate the concerns of the residents of Kestrel Way for clearly the parking access solution from Gunville Road was satisfactory and would have avoided the need to use Kestrel Way. It was unfortunate that the developer failed to achieve a suitable agreement with the neighbouring landowner to provide the necessary visibility splay required by the Planning Authority. The end result is this proposal which the Planning Authority have no option but to consider on its merits with the acid test being whether or not it is acceptable on highway and planning grounds. From my assessment above I consider that the proposal is an acceptable alternative to access off Gunville Road. I therefore am of the view that the proposal should be approved subject to appropriate conditions, which should include the provision of the parking spaces and reconstruction of the access drive as indicated prior to any occupation of the built properties. Also, the erection of the bollards represent an important element to prevent unofficial access from Gunville Road to the parking spaces.

I am aware that there have been questions raised regarding land ownership or control, however, the applicants have through a solicitor indicated that they are satisfied that they are in control of all the land which is the subject of the application and enables this proposal to take place. This is as far as the Planning Authority can go in this respect. Obviously, if it transpires that others other than the applicant are in ownership or control of the land then the applicant may have difficulty in implementing the approval, however, this is a civil matter and not a matter for the Planning Authority to involve itself.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the opinion that any environmental impact caused by this proposal in terms of neighbouring properties and use of Kestrel Way would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal, neither would the reduction in plot size in respect of plot 1 to accommodate the parking spaces. I therefore recommend accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

The Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

Environment Agency has advised applicants that they should ensure existing method of foul drainage is in a good state of repair regularly maintained and of sufficient capacity to deal with any potential increased flow. The surface water system may be inadequate to take increased flow and the applicants should consider incorporating the principles of sustainable drainage systems within the development.

Letter received from Carisbrooke West Community Forum objecting to application and referring to conditions imposed on previous consent. Comment is made that the application encroaches on the unique atmosphere of the Castle Street Conservation Area and would be out of character to the existing building itself a former chapel which was formerly much admired by visitors and locals alike. The proposed changes would greatly increase the footprint of the new building which will intrude into the area and add to parking problems already encountered in the narrow road. Comment is made that the existing building should be restored as previously approved before any further matters are considered.

Comment received from Archaeology Officer indicating that the development concerns a site of archaeological interest and recommends that any approval should be subject to a condition requiring access to observe ground works.

Eight letters have been received from local residents commenting on the application with matters raised summarised below;

The existing building is part of the heritage of Castle Street.

The replacement building would be entirely out of character with the Conservation Area and the old buildings should be preserved.

The historic part of Castle Street is used by tourists on their way to the castle and the appearance of the building adds to the value of the Conservation Area.

The proposal could set a precedent for the loss of other buildings in the historic Conservation Area.

The current property is considered perfectly capable of being renovated and was in constant habitable use until a year ago.

The construction of a chalet bungalow would be out of character in the area where there are no bungalows fronting the street. The few modern buildings that do stand in Castle Street are set well back from the road and screened by a wall and hedging. The new modern bungalow would be very prominent as the position would be elevated above the road. That this would detract from the charm and character of an otherwise highly appealing street which is one of the most attractive roads in Carisbrooke old village.

Evaluation

This application relates to a detached dwelling situated on the western side of Castle Street approximately 40 metres to the south of the junction with Carisbrooke High Street. The existing dwelling is a small chalet style property under a steeply pitched roof and is situated on rising ground within landscaped gardens.

Members may recall that an application relating to extension of the property and removal of part of the front boundary wall to provide vehicular hardstanding was considered by the Development Control Committee on 18 February 2002 and was approved subject to a number of conditions relating to use of materials, provision of landscaping and retention of the remaining sections of the roadside boundary wall.

The application now under consideration shows demolition of the existing building, its reconstruction to a similar size and design with the provision of an additional single storey extension to provide annexed accommodation for an elderly relative. The single storey annex would be situated at the rear of the site to the north western part of the garden and due to the change in ground levels would be set below the ground level of the adjacent property to the west such that the eaves line would be approximately 800 mm above the adjacent garden level.

The submitted details indicate that the main property would be reconstructed to its previous size and appearance allowing for the previously approved extensions. A report accompanying the application indicates that the property was originally built as a brethren meeting hall in about 1611 and is constructed of solid brickwork with timber framing. Approximately 50 years ago the property was condemned for residential habitation although at that time some improvements were undertaken to remedy the situation. The roof is of a mansard style with natural slate finish externally. The internal walls to the property are extremely weak. The mansard roof has never possessed sufficient lateral restraint on the external walls and has resulted in severe outward thrust of the roof at its abutment with the roof plates. This applies to the whole of the property but more especially to the rear section where there is an extremely prominent bulge in the brickwork at higher levels and at the worst point the wall appears to have moved outwards as much as 200 mm. The existing roof fascia boards have also bowed significantly as a result of roof pressure. Repair of the property is not considered to be economically viable as new foundations, walls and roof would all be required. It is confirmed that the applicants intend to construct the new walls with salvaged brickwork from the property under a natural Welsh slate roof and the cottage would be reconstructed virtually exactly as it now exists with the addition of the annexed accommodation.

The existing building is of somewhat unusual design and appearance, probably reflecting its former use as a meeting hall. Whilst it is acknowledged that the appearance of the building, particularly with the landscaped setting is part of the traditional character of this part of Castle Street, the building itself is not listed as being of any architectural or historic merit and has been significantly altered in the past.

Unitary Development Plan policy B7 refers to demolition of non-listed buildings in Conservation Areas and indicates that applications will only be approved where the existing building does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and where, if appropriate, there is a satisfactory redevelopment proposal for the site and the proposed replacement building would either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Whilst I understand the concerns of local residents regarding the demolition of this traditional building, I am of the opinion that in this particular case, bearing in mind the structural condition of the building and the fact that the main structure would be replaced on a like for like basis, there would be no sustainable reason for refusing consent for its reconstruction to the same size, design and appearance as the previous building, particularly as this is not a listed structure.

The determining factor is therefore considered to be whether the size and design of the proposed annexed extension would be acceptable taking into account its effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the effect on the amenities of nearby residential properties.

Following negotiations, revised details have been submitted which have reduced the overall size of the proposed extension which would measure approximately 8.5 metres in length by 5.8 metres in width. Although the annex would have a separate front entrance door, the submitted details indicate that it would also be linked internally to the kitchen area of the main property and the overall level of accommodation provided is not considered excessive for use by a dependant relative.

The extension would be constructed of brickwork to match the main building together with a slate roof and the revised details show the roofline would be hipped at the northern end to reflect the line of the roof on the main property. The window and door details would be similar to that on the existing property and a new gabled porch would match that proposed for the main dwelling.

The extension would be set to the rear (western) part of the site allowing a garden area adjacent to the roadside which would be similar to the existing situation and to other properties in the immediate vicinity.

The access and car parking arrangements would be as previously approved and although the annexed accommodation may result in some additional parking requirement for the property, Members will note that the Highway Engineer has raised no objections and this would not be dissimilar to the existing situation on that allowing for the fact that additional parking has been previously approved within this site.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that on balance the demolition of the existing building which is in a poor structural condition and its replacement with a structure of similar size, design and appearance, together with a single storey annexed extension would not be inappropriate in this location and would preserve the character of this part of the Conservation Area without adversely affecting the amenities of the locality or the nearby residents. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with policies B6, B7 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I therefore recommend accordingly subject to a condition to ensure that the redevelopment is commenced within three months of the demolition of the existing building on the site.

               Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Both Highway Engineer and Environmental Health Officer raise no comment on this application.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle subject to access to slipway and trailer parking areas being maintained and unobstructed.