PAPER B1


SCHEDULE OF APPEALS


 

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

           TCP/24539                                 Mr A C & Mrs C L Sutton against refusal for vehicle hard standing 25, Priory Road, Carisbrooke

 

           TCP/1501T                                 Mr D Walser against refusal of change of use to monkey sanctuary at Five Acres Farm, Staplers Road, Newport

 

           TCP/7402B                                 G Thompson against refusal for dwelling land rear of Longlands, Eddington Road, Nettlestone, Seaview

 

           E/12450N                                   The Scott Community Limited against Enforcement Notice relating to change of use from hotel accommodation to multiple occupancy, Christian Respite Centre, 35 Carter Street, Sandown

 

           E/5964K                                     Oliver Wiley against Enforcement Notice relating to change of use from hotel accommodation to staff accommodation at Raffles Tavern, Steyne Road, Bembridge

 

           TCP/24775                                 Mr M Malin against refusal for change of use from gift shop to amusement arcade at Daltons, 62 High Street, Shanklin

 

           TCP/7131B                                 G E Dillon against condition requiring permanent obscure glazed and non-opening window in respect of planning permission for the retention of a conservatory at 3 Baring Drive, Cowes

 

           A/2216/A                                    Mr J Smith against refusal for advertisement consent for the retention of two directional signs to ‘The Bike Shed’ junction of A3056 and East Lane, Merstone

 

           LDC/24579                                 G W & C A Blake against refusal of Lawful Development Certificate for the continued use of premises for the preparation of fish and shell fish at Blake & Spencer, Esplanade, Ventnor

 



 

2.        HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

           TCP/24112/A                              Mr & Mrs D Floyd against refusal for terrace of two houses and two maisonettes and formation of vehicular access onto Palmerston Road, Shanklin. Hearing to take place on 21 January 2003.





 

3.        REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

           (a)       TCP/20232/F                  Mr D Meek against refusal of outline for two houses land between 59 & 71 Noke Common, Newport

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 20 September 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 7 August 2002.


           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The effect which the houses would have upon the character and appearance of their surroundings, bearing in mind the provisions of the development plan.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The site is the greater part of the gap 60-70 metres between buildings and cannot be properly described as a small gap.

 

           ∙          These large gaps between the pockets of development contribute to the rural character of the surroundings.

 

           ∙          The construction of two houses at this point would diminish the contribution of the gap to the rural character of the surroundings.

 

           ∙          The proposed development would not harmonise with the surroundings and would consolidate the dispersed pattern of development.

 

           ∙          The proposal would conflict with UDP policies.


            ..............................................................................................................................................           

           (b)       TCP/5045/H                    Mr & Mrs A Williams against refusal for detached house and a detached garage block at land between The Spinney & Little Garth, Park Road, Wootton

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal - 4 September 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 12 August 2002.

 

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

 

           ∙          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.


           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The site is very much part of the open countryside and does not comprise a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage.

 

           ∙          The width of the plot is such that the proposed house appears as a separate substantial building out of context with those in the vicinity.

 

           ∙          The proposal does not meet any of the criteria for an exception to the presumption against development outside defined settlements.

 

           ∙          The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and would be contrary to development plan policies.

 

           •          The offer of land to be made available for possible road improvement does not justify a proposal which is found to be harmful.

......................................................................................................................................................

 

           (c)       TCP/18128/M                 Mrs M E Wood against refusal of outline for bungalow with access off Denton Gardens at land adjacent 9 Denton Gardens, East Cowes.

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 3 December 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 12 August 2002


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area.

 

           •          The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining dwellings with particular reference to privacy and visual impact.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The character of the area is enhanced by a number of mature trees which are the subject of TPO’s.

 

           ∙          The proposed dwelling would occupy the southern portion of the existing garden to number 9 and would be located only 1 metre from the garage.

 

           ∙          

The development would not respect the existing street patterns or meet the criterion of UDP policy D1 which seeks to prevent a cramped appearance in new development.

 

           ∙          The loss of the mature oak tree, covered by a TPO, would detract from the quality of the environment and an effective substitute would take many years to reach maturity.

 

           ∙          There would unlikely to be any material loss of privacy or undue visual impact as the construction of a bungalow would leave at least a 13 metre gap between buildings.

.....................................................................................................................................................

 


           (d)       TCP/18128/L                  Mrs M E Wood against refusal of outline for a chalet bungalow on land between 91 & 94 Old Road, East Cowes

 

           Officer Recommendation:      Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 19 November 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 12 August 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area.

 

           •          The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining dwellings with particular reference to privacy and visual impact.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           ∙          The design of any dwelling on this plot would be constrained by the narrowness of the plot.

 

           ∙          Development of the site would result in a cramped and incongrous layout, out of character with the street scene on the north side of Old Road.

 

           •          The proposed dwelling would be sited close to the boundaries of both adjacent properties and would lead to partial over shadowing of the front garden of number 91 but not to the extent of any material harm arising.

 

           ∙          The effect on number 95 would be more marked as the proposed dwelling would dominate the relatively small garden and be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers.


.....................................................................................................................................................

 

           (e)       TCP/5528/K &                Mr C Feeney against refusal of planning permission and

                        LBC/5528/L                    Listed Building Consent for the retention of canopy on front elevation, retention of covered yard area forming toilet facilities and retention of extraction vent at 9 St. Thomas square, Newport

 

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

 

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (both applications) - 18 December 2001.

 

           Appeal Decision:                      Part allowed (part dismissed) - 19 August 2002.


           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

           •          The effect of the development and use of it upon the standard of amenity enjoyed at the neighbouring property.

 


           •          The way in which the works have affected the special interest of the building and its setting and that of its listed neighbours.

 

           •          The impact of works upon the character and appearance of the Newport Conservation Area.

 

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

           •          The canopy is a pleasant constituent in the local scene and extension of the flat roof has facilitated improved toilet access for people with disabilities and should be allowed to remain.

 

           •          There is little evidence to substantiate the alleged smells of the extraction vent but the installation does have the potential to cause noise pollution.

 

           •          The extraction flue is a discordant feature, prominent in views from the rear and from various buildings around.

 

           •          The flue is not a feature which accords with the period, style and detail of the appeal building and its presence does not maintain or enhance the quality and character of the built environment.

 

           •          Having special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting and that of its listed neighbours and paying special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, permission should not be granted for the retention of the extraction flue.

 

.....................................................................................................................................................


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