PAPER B2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 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 - 17 SEPTEMBER 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/17-9-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PART II

This application was the subject of a report to this Committee at the meeting held on 5 June 2002 where Members resolved to defer the application pending receipt of additional information regarding capacity of sewerage system in Newport Road.

Site and Location

Application relates to Niton Garage and land to rear, located on western side of Newport Road approximately 125 metres north of its junction with Church Street and Rectory Road. Site comprises commercial garage premises and adjoining land which presently forms part of curtilage to bungalow to rear of garage.

Application site, as defined on submitted plans, has frontage to Newport Road of approximately 30 metres and maximum depth of approximately 140 metres. Site varies in width between approximately 15 metres at its narrowest to 32 metres at its widest point and is bounded to north east by gardens to properties fronting Newport Road, to north west by open fields and to south west by Downside Avenue which runs virtually full length of boundary to site. Ground falls gently towards Newport Road.

Relevant History

An application seeking outline planning permission for three dwellings with access off Downside Avenue was refused in July 1979 on grounds that site, by reason of its restricted depth was unsuitable for the development proposed and would result in cramped appearance out of character with other development in the locality, resulting in overdevelopment.

Application seeking outline planning permission for two dwellings with access off Downside Avenue was conditionally approved in July 1986.

These applications involved areas of land equating to approximately one half and one third respectively of the area the subject of the current application, located towards rear of site.

Details of Application

Original submission sought outline planning permission for 15 houses with siting and access to be considered at this stage and all other detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval. Submitted plans showed majority of proposed dwellings, comprising both semi-detached and detached units, running along south western boundary of site, flanked on one side by Downside Avenue and to the other by the proposed access road serving the development, with four further dwellings arranged around turning area at north western end of site. Proposal involved demolition of the garage premises and the bungalow to the rear. Submitted plans indicated that each dwelling would have parking for at least one car. Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing slight alterations to layout of dwellings, increasing number along south western side of site and rearranging those around the turning area at north western end of site.

Following discussions with applicant's agent, scheme was significantly revised and further plans submitted showing alterations to the layout and the type of dwellings to be provided. Revised plans showed total of 14 dwellings comprising pair of semi-detached properties fronting Newport Road and terrace of three dwellings with car parking at south eastern end of site, retention of existing bungalow and terraced/mews style development of nine dwellings at north western end of site. In addition, submitted plans show two structures located adjacent south western boundary providing covered parking for ten vehicles. Furthermore, plans indicate that off street parking would be provided, accessed off road within the development, to serve three existing properties which front Newport Road.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, sets out Government's policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the re-use of existing buildings. Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.

Site is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be within development envelope for Niton. 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 (greenfield) sites.

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

S7 - There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

TR6 - Cycling and Walking.

TR7 - Highway Consideration for New Development.

The survey work undertaken in connection with the Urban Capacity Study identifies the site as having potential for development.

Representations

In their initial comments Niton and Whitwell Parish Council expressed view that this was an important application in terms of the size of the village and recommended that a site inspection should take place. Following revision of the scheme and further consultations with the Parish Council, further comments have been received from them recommending refusal to application on grounds of overdevelopment of site and effects of off-street parking on the surrounding area.

Further comments have been received from the Parish Council maintaining their objection to proposal.

Highway Engineer has been involved in considerable discussions regarding this scheme, and following initial opposition on highway design and safety grounds, has agreed that the revised scheme now put forward for determination is acceptable to him, providing conditions are imposed, including a "grampian" condition requiring the provision of a dedicated footway within highway land between the site and Niton village centre.

Council's Assistant Ecology Officer has visited site and has found evidence of badgers entering the site. She advises that there is a worn track about halfway along the rear boundary and the grassed areas would provide a suitable foraging habitat. However, she advised that the site itself does not appear to be suitable for a sett and no sett was obvious in the field behind the garage. It is the sett which is protected from disturbance, not foraging areas, and she did not think that level of activity observed was likely to create a problem for development of the site. With regard to the other species referred to by objectors, she advises that slow-worms are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and if approval is recommended, it should be subject to a condition requiring the removal of the slow-worms from the site to a suitable habitat elsewhere prior to work commencing on site. She does not consider site provides suitable habitat for Great Crested Newts.

Principal Environmental Health Officer and Contaminated Land Officer have recommended conditions, should application be approved, to deal with potential contamination of the site.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service consider proposal to be satisfactory subject to decommissioning of existing petrol filling station in compliance with the current requirements of Health and Safety Executives and Fire and Rescue Service. He indicates that written notification is required before any such works commence.

Total of 26 letters were received from local residents (some households submitting more than one letter) in respect of original submission and first minor revision to scheme, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Loss of privacy - provision of fewer houses or bungalows may be possibility.

Increased traffic generation - potential hazard to pedestrians particularly children due to lack of pavement in area. View was expressed that garage does not generate significant levels of traffic.

Site is used by badgers. In addition, other wildlife including foxes, weasels, stoats, bats, barn owls, sparrow hawks, woodpeckers, frogs, newts, slow worms, pheasants and other birds are present in the area. Development would have adverse impact on wildlife.

Development would detract from outlook of adjacent properties.

Proposal is contrary to policy of maintaining greenbelt land within a rural area.

Development would be threat to safety of cattle in adjacent fields.

Site is accessed off busy public highway of inadequate width and with very limited visibility.

Downside Avenue adjacent site is private road which should remain so.

High density development out of keeping with character of village and will detract from rural character of area.

Development of site should reflect other developments which took place in village during 60's, 70's and 80's.

Access road is of inadequate width.

Garden area to properties are almost non-existent.

Development would adversely effect already poor visibility at junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road.

Parking and turning areas on development are minimal likely to lead to on-street parking in adjacent roads.

Overdevelopment.

Loss of local amenity within village i.e. the garage.

No indication of type of boundary treatment to be provided between site and Downside Avenue.

One objector indicated no objection to principle of residential development on site and, having regard to unattractive appearance of garage premises, development could improve appearance of site. Concern was also expressed by one objector that only one household in Downside Avenue was notified about proposal giving little opportunity for people to comment.

Letter was received from adjacent property owner advising no objection to development of site if it is done in an imaginative way and in a style that reflects character of area and comments that access road should be positioned so as not to prejudice future development of adjoining garden areas.

Following receipt of further plans, revised scheme was publicised in local press and by display of a site notice and adjoining owner/occupiers and those who had submitted representations were notified accordingly. As a result of this exercise, a further eight letters were received objecting to proposal raising additional issues as follows:

Facilities in village e.g. shop are not sufficient to service extra families.

There are many empty and second homes in area - no need for further building.

Covered parking and higher fencing will detract from outlook of adjacent property.

Lower number of single storey buildings would blend with area better - current proposal seems to be heading towards Housing Association type development.

Houses would be unsightly and overbearing due to rising ground.

Development would lead to increase in foul and surface water drainage. In heavy rain flooding already occurs at crossroads at bottom of Newport Road.

In addition, following publicity of revised scheme, three letters were received in support of proposal raising following issues:

Proposal will improve an architecturally ugly part of an attractive village.

Proposal will encourage new residents in the village and contribute to life of its community.

Site is close to village and will not encroach onto surrounding agricultural land.

Design has taken account of possible dangers that could occur.

Removal of garage premises will result in reduction of traffic, particularly lorries, delivery vans etc.

Evaluation

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, whether number of houses proposed and general layout as indicated on submitted plans would detract from character of area and amenities of neighbouring occupiers and whether proposal would give rise to unacceptable highway hazard.

Whilst site is not allocated for residential purposes, it is located within the development envelope. Policy S7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan identifies a need for at least 8,000 housing units over the Plan period and, in addition to previously identified sites and new land allocated in the Plan, this demand will also be satisfied by developing currently unidentified sites. Site is not located within a greenbelt, as suggested by an objector and, having regard to its location within the development envelope, is not considered to be countryside. I consider that proposal, involving development of a brown field site, is consistent with the aims of Policy S7 and the provisions of PPG3 which encourages development of such sites in order to relieve pressure on greenfield sites. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to development of site for residential purposes.

Original proposal involving row of houses flanked by access road to the development on one side and Downside Avenue to the other was considered to be unacceptable, resulting in a poor arrangement likely to prejudice the amenities of future occupants of the dwellings. I would agree with the view expressed by the Highway Engineer in his initial comments that the most logical way of developing this site would involve properties fronting onto and with access from Downside Avenue. Therefore, applicant's agent was advised to investigate feasibility of such a proposal. However, Downside Avenue is a private road and I am advised by the applicant's agent that, despite lengthy negotiations and discussions with residents, he has been unable to reach agreement with them over use of Downside Avenue to access the development. Nevertheless, this would not provide justification for allowing development which is of sub-standard or poor layout. Therefore, further negotiations were undertaken with applicant's agent to overcome the planning objections to the proposal, namely the poor layout of the development and to address the concerns of the Highway Engineer.

Further plans were subsequently submitted showing a revised layout for 14 dwellings incorporating semi-detached and terraced properties. Objectors have suggested that site could be developed with a smaller number of single storey dwellings or should be similar to development which took place in the village during the 60's, 70's and 80's. However, I consider that, subject to appropriate design and elevational treatment, the development of the site in the form shown on the revised plans would reflect the more traditional cottage architecture found within the village. Furthermore, if full advantage is taken of the fall of the land, the dwellings, and particularly those to the north western end of the site, could be stepped to create an interesting design and appearance. In this respect, Policy D1 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure that development maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment and planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and conform with the criteria set out in the policy, including respecting the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area. In this instance, I consider that proposal provides opportunity to develop site in a fashion which would be complimentary to and sympathetic with the surrounding development providing a sense of place.

With regard to highway considerations, revised scheme incorporates layout and, in particular, visibility and road geometry at junction of access road and Newport Road which are acceptable to the Highway Engineer. Furthermore, following submission of additional information in respect of levels through access road, he is satisfied that acceptable gradients can be achieved.

It is accepted that Newport Road is relatively narrow and, whilst some lengths of footway have been constructed by the Council, at present, there is no continuous footway link between the application site and the centre of the village. Provision of such a facility would involve areas of land outside the control of the applicant. However, submitted plans indicate that a footway would be provided across the entire frontage of the application site. I consider that provision of footway across frontage of application site would improve visibility from junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road in a northerly direction thereby benefitting existing residents. Existing footway to south of site, beyond junction of Downside Avenue and Newport Road, continues along western side of road for a distance of approximately 40 metres before terminating. Section of highway having distance of approximately 45 metres from this point to the existing pavement outside retail premises on corner of Newport Road and Rectory Road has no footway. Following site meeting attended by applicant's agent and Highway Engineer, it has been established that continuous footway link could be provided by creating a pinch point/safe haven at point where pavement on western side of road terminates, providing a crossing point to opposite side of road where a pedestrian area would be marked out along the eastern side of the carriageway. I am satisfied that provision of this facility would achieve a significant community benefit and can be secured by imposition of condition recommended by Highway Engineer, should Members be minded to approve the application.

In terms of impact on neighbouring occupiers, I consider that any overlooking and loss of privacy from the development can be kept to minimum with careful consideration regarding positioning of windows within dwellings. In this respect, direct overlooking of properties to north of site is likely to be restricted to area of garden furthest from the dwellings and I do not consider that this would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. Similarly, amenities of property immediately adjacent site within Downside Avenue could be protected with appropriate boundary treatment and, again, careful positioning of windows within nearest dwelling.

Concern has been expressed that proposal would result in loss of valuable facility to the village, namely the garage premises. In this respect, it is understood that owner of garage has now ceased to sell petrol and premises are used solely for servicing/repair of vehicles. These services are also provided by garage premises to south of village, at bottom of Barrack Shute. Therefore, I do not consider that refusal on grounds of loss of the garage facilities would be justified. It has also been suggested that existing facilities within the village, e.g. village shop, are inadequate to cater for additional housing. However, it could be argued that provision of additional housing would provide additional trade for these facilities thereby improving their viability or enabling existing businesses to expand.

Following consultations with the Council's Assistant Ecology Officer, I am satisfied that development will not have adverse impact on wildlife within the area, and in particular, protected species such as badgers. Following these consultations, it is understood that there is no badger sett within or near the site and whilst it may be used for foraging, this would not preclude development. Furthermore, I am satisfied that characteristics of site are such that it would not support a wide diversity of wildlife or that which is present would necessarily prevent development.

Applicants agent has provided letter from engineers dealing with issue of foul and surface water drainage. The engineers advise that they have carried out a preliminary assessment of the drainage requirements of the proposed development and have also requested that Southern Water carry out a hydraulic analysis of the existing sewerage system so that the down-flow section of the Newport Road and Rectory Road drainage system, which comprises a 175 mm diameter pipe with significant falls due to the topography of the area, can be confirmed as being sufficient in capacity to accept flows from the development. Notwithstanding this exercise, they express the view that the increase in flow arising from the development will be low in relation to the overall flows currently catered for by the existing system and it is unlikely that it would be found to be inadequate.

With regard to storm water flows, the engineer advises that these can either be disposed of to soakaways which, given the granular nature of the underlying soils, he considers would be acceptable or, if capacity permits, the development could be connected to the existing storm water drainage in Newport Road, subject to detailed design considerations which may possibly require the installation of an attenuation system to regulate outflow from the development during times of high rainfall.

Further information has been received from consulting engineers and surveyors acting on behalf of applicant addressing in greater detail matters relating to disposal of foul water and surface water from the development. This information was accompanied by correspondence from Southern Water indicating that the results of a hydraulic assessment of the existing sewerage system indicate that there is sufficient capacity in the system to accommodate a foul flow no greater than 0.7 l/s. The engineers have calculated that the foul sewer flow from the proposed development would be 0.65 l/s. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided, there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system to serve the proposed development. However, the correspondence from Southern Water indicate that the hydraulic assessment carried out by them indicates that there is insufficient capacity in the sewerage system to accommodate any additional surface water flows. They suggest that the developer will have to seek an alternative means of surface water disposal such as soakaways and/or any natural water courses, subject to all parties approval.

Engineers acting on behalf of the applicant have carried out consultations with the Council's Highways Department who have confirmed that there is spare capacity for surface water runoff in the adjacent road drainage system, the head manhole of which is located just adjacent the site. The information provided indicates that this system comprises a minimum 150 mm diameter drain, which, between the development site and its discharge into the culverted Yar at the lower end of Newport Road would typically have a full flow capacity of 42 l/s. Engineer suggests that during a two year event this pipe could accept a further flow from the development site equivalent to some 25% of its capacity, i.e. 10 l/s, although in practice this might be more as the road gulley here already receives considerable runoff from the existing garage site. On this basis, they suggest that it would be necessary to provide a retention system capable of holding some 20 cubic metres of storm water pending regulated discharge, which could be achieved through appropriately sized pipes beneath the access road with the outlet from the system design-regulated to ensure a maximum discharge to the highway drain of no more than 10 l/s. However, engineer indicates that, in order to accommodate the effects of a one in thirty year storm event, a higher storage capacity of some 50 cubic metres would be necessary, or alternatively, an equivalent combination of storage and soil infiltration systems, both of which could be constructed beneath the paved roadway and parking areas.

For information, and in response to suggestions that there are flooding problems at the lower end of Newport Road at crossroads in the centre of the village, engineer indicates that, as a long term resident of Niton, he has observed that the prime cause of what has only been very occasional surface flooding of the roads in this area, has been the effects of storm water runoff from the fields on the slopes of St Catherine's Down which have overwhelmed the road drainage gulleys in Blackgang Road to the west of the village. He suggests that there have been no such problems affecting Newport Road itself, even though a large part of the area of the proposed development site currently drains naturally onto the roadway where it passes the garage frontage. He therefore expresses the opinion that new drainage proposals in connection with the development will not have any adverse effects upon the present drainage regime within the centre of Niton.

On the basis of the information provided, I am satisfied that adequate provision can be made for the disposal of foul water and surface water from the proposed development.

Application was publicised in the local press and by display of a site notice, and owners of properties which adjoin the site were notified of application in writing. Exercise was repeated on submission of the revised plans and also letters sent to all those who had made representations in respect of proposal. Therefore, I am satisfied that adequate publicity measures have been carried out in respect of this application and in particular that the regulations for publicity of planning applications have been complied with.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal represents an acceptable form of development, which would reflect the more traditional cottage architecture found within the village and, therefore, would not have a detrimental effect on the character of the locality. Furthermore, I do not consider that proposal would have excessive or adverse impact on adjoining properties to detriment of amenities enjoyed by occupiers thereof. I am satisfied that, subject to implementation of off-site works to provide a continuous footway link between the site and centre of village, Highway Engineer's concerns have been addressed.

           Recommendation -         Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

Representations

Sport England objects to the proposal reiterating their policy:-

"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."

Sport England is, however, pleased to see that unlike in previous proposals upon this site, the playing pitch is now shown to be retained but are still concerned for two main reasons:-

1.      No evidence has been submitted to show a need or demand for such a slope on the Island. The development would clearly result in the loss of playing field. As Sport England's policy is to protect playing fields not just playing pitches and justification has not been substantiated, accordingly object.

2.      Concern is raised in respect of the accuracy of the plan, questioning the true dimension of the site. Suggests conflict with previous application plans and question if a playing pitch of the size shown could be built.

Council's Sports and Recreation Officer confirms pitch size is acceptable but strongly questions need and demand for such a facility, would not support provision of this development with detailed consultations to establish a need.

One letter of objection from a local resident on grounds of development out of character, increased traffic and therefore danger, light and noise pollution, visual impact, loss of open space and amenities.

Evaluation

Fairway Park is an almost square tract of land approximately 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 properties in Fairmead Close.

The site remains unused and overgrown, last used as a football ground about eight to ten years ago. It 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. The reasons for refusal were the significant loss of open space within Lake Parish which would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area, contrary to the Council's policy to retain such land, the fact that adequate land had been allocated for residential development within the area, inadequate amenity or play space and the fact that the site was not allocated for residential development in the development plan. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 24 July 1998.

In December 1999 an application for the use of the land as a woodland cemetery was refused on the grounds that the development would result in a significant loss of open space with the potential for a playing field within Lake Parish and contrary to local and national policy, similar to the previous proposal.

In July 2001 an outline application for a tennis and racquets club was also refused. Whilst submitted in outline form, the remarkably detailed plans submitted with the application comprehensively detailed the development envisaged. The subsequent appeal against that refusal was dismissed by letter dated 21 November 2001.

In March of this year an application seeking consent for the change of use from the former football club to a garden centre with associated single storey reception building, security fencing, access and car parking was also refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in a significant loss of open space with potential for a playing field within the Lake Parish, detrimental to the amenities and character of the area, contrary to policy L4 of the UDP which seeks to retain land for recreational amenity purposes and contrary to general guidance to resist pressures for development of open space. In addition, the development also conflicted with the wider public interest contrary to the thrusts of national planning policy as contained in PPG17.

Lastly, in July of this year, an application for the demolition of 40 The Fairway and outline for eleven bungalows and formation of vehicular access, a scheme which retained a football pitch towards the north eastern part of the site was also refused on grounds of loss or prejudice to a site with potential for a playing field within the Parish, being detrimental to the amenities and character of the area and contrary to policy L4 and contrary to advice in PPG17.

Various applications and subsequent appeals have consistently been dismissed due to the loss of playing fields and/or loss of open space.

This application seeks consent to use this vacant, but overgrown former football ground for the construction of a dry ski slope, the re-establishment of a full sized football pitch, the erection of a combined building to form reception area and changing rooms and for a car park with a capacity of approximately fifty spaces. The plan shows the football pitch to have dimensions of 100 by 64 metres, the combined building for reception, refreshments and changing rooms to be 25 metres by 15 metres and located towards the western boundary behind those properties fronting The Medeway, the dry ski slope to occupy an area of approximately 80 metres by 35 metres and for a car parking area to be located just inside the entrance to the site with overall dimensions of 20 metres by 40 metres. Security fencing is proposed along the southern boundary with all boundaries augmented with proliferal landscape planting. In addition the approximate height of the summit of the ski slope is shown as 7 metres, formed by importing bulk material with sides top soiled and seeded. It is also proposed to include a "button drag lift" on the northern side to enable participants to access the summit.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, matters relating to access and traffic generation and possible effects on adjoining properties.

As with the previous applications, matters relating to access and parking are considered to be acceptable. The plan shows sufficient parking for approximately fifty vehicles although it is difficult to see how the car parking as shown would accommodate that number. However, car parking could be extended to enable further spaces to be provided. The plan also shows the small bungalow adjoining the northern side of the existing access to be demolished which would enable the widening and realignment of the access to take place. It is requested also that outline planning permission is granted for its replacement.

As with previous proposals, the likely effects, if any, are to be through noise and disturbance of vehicles and spectators but it is felt that these levels would be no greater than that which would be realised if the former football ground had continued in use and, indeed, if it recommenced. Bearing in mind the Council's policy in respect of this site is to retain recreation and sporting provision, it is envisaged that the levels of noise likely if the use starts again on this site will be roughly the same. Accordingly, I do not consider that the effect on adjoining properties is likely to be any greater with the proposal than the site's previous authorised use. Visual impact on adjoining properties is not considered to be significant due to the height of the slope and distances involved and the fact that the peripheral trees are covered by preservation orders and screening could be augmented in order to reinforce the visual barrier.

As with previous proposals, this leaves the determining factor to be that of policy and principle, in effect the loss of the potential of this site as a playing field.

Although similar in principle to the last but one application which sought consent for a dry ski slope, this current proposal is quite different from other, previous proposals on the site in as much that it seeks consent to carry out physical works to provide an outside sporting facility by creating a dry ski slope but, in this instance, it also seeks to establish a new full sized football pitch. Previous development proposals have sought planning permission for development which would either develop the site or change its use, or both. This application is primarily for sporting facilities but retaining a playing pitch whereas, previously, a smaller pitch for, perhaps five-a-side football, was suggested.

The essence of previous planning decisions, culminating in their refusal was for the following reason:

"The proposal would result in a significant loss of open space with potential for a playing field within Lake Parish. This would be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area contrary to policy L4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan which seeks to retain land for recreational amenity purposes and general guidance to resist pressures for development of open space. It also conflicts with the wider public interest contrary to the thrust of national planning policy as contained in PPG17."

The proposed development differs from the previous proposal for the dry ski slope in as much that the current proposal seeks to re-establish a full sized football pitch on the land and siting the dry ski slope in such a position so that it did not prejudice the use of that land for playing purposes. The scheme does, however, seek to provide an additional sporting provision which, clearly, is not an inappropriate use in this location.

Sport England have consistently supported the Council's resistance to previous proposals on the basis of the loss of or prejudice to the use of all or any part of a playing field but it is recognised that, with this proposal, the resiting and re-establishment of a full sized football pitch is proposed.

PPG17 refers specifically to playing fields and in paragraphs 15 -17, sets out the Government's policy:-

"Playing Fields

15.    In advance of an assessment of need, local authorities should give very careful consideration to any planning applications involving development on playing fields. Where a robust assessment of need in accordance with this guidance has not been undertaken, planning permission for such developments should not be allowed unless:

         (i)    the proposed development is ancillary to the use of the site as a playing field (eg new changing rooms) and does not adversely affect the quantity or quality of pitches and their use;

         (ii)   the proposed development only affects land which is incapable of forming a playing pitch (or part of one);

         (iii)   the playing fields that would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or fields of equivalent or better quantity and quality and in a suitable location - see paragraph 13 above; or

         (iv)  the proposed development is for an outdoor or indoor sports facility of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field.

Development within Open Spaces

16.    The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications - either within or adjoining open space - local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur. Planning authorities may wish to allow small-scale structures where these would support the existing recreational uses (for example, interpretation centres, toilets, and refreshment facilities), or would provide facilities for new recreational uses. They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is sensitive to, the local context.

17.    Local authorities should:

         (i)   avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance character of open spaces;

         (ii)   ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment;

         (iii)   protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and

         (iv)  consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation."

In a previous report I advised Members that all previous planning proposals had been consistently refused for development of this site as each proposal has, to date, sought the loss of the potential playing field and/or the open space. It is clear that the Council's intention for this site is to restore the former playing field and that any development which prejudices that aim will be resisted.

Essentially the development of the ski slope would use up land which has been used in the past as part of a playing field and therefore strictly prejudices its reuse in that previous form.

Planning policy (both National and Local) are embodied in UDP policy L4 which states:-

"Planning applications for development resulting in the loss of established, proposed or future public or private open spaces, village greens and allotments will only be approved in exceptional circumstances where:

a)      development for community purposes would be of greater benefit than retaining the open space and allotments and there are no suitable sites available; and

b)      suitable alternative provision is provided prior to the development taking place.

Sport England's objections support both National and Local policy. It is clear that if a community need was proven to exist, one which outweighed the presumption against the loss of playing field, there may be a case for granting planning permission. Following requests the applicant has declined to provide me with any evidence to show that there is demand for a dry ski slope and therefore I am unable to support the loss of playing field land. I have no alternative other than to recommend refusal.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material consideration as described in the Evaluation section above, the proposal would result in an unjustified loss of playing field land, contrary to National and Local Planning policy to protect playing fields from development.

               Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

This application was to be determined by the delegated system but it is before the Committee at the Local Member's request.

Representations

Highway Engineer has no comments.

Environmental Health Officer has no adverse comments.

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend approval of the application and that the number of single deck buses should not exceed four.

Two letters of objection have been received with the following concerns:

· Use is inappropriate in a residential area.

· Repair work inappropriate within a residential area.

· Access not suitable for large vehicles.

· Potential pollution from fuel leakages on surrounding wildlife

Two letters of support were received accompanying the application:

· Support applicant’s efforts to preserve heritage for the Island.

· No visual or noise inconvenience.

Following comment from the local Member; "I understand from a supporter of this application that there is more than just the parking of these vehicles, that they are to be brought up to date and used for ferrying tourists around the Island, I applaud anyone wishing to further tourist related businesses however, Newport Road is a very narrow road already very busy with diverted traffic from the Undercliff, I would wish the Committee to be aware what the proposal is."

Evaluation

The application site is on the western side of Newport Road to the rear of Melbury, a Grade II Listed Building. The garden area associated with the house forms a triangular shape, extending out to form a square shaped plot, which is where the four historic buses are currently located. Access to the site is via track from Newport Road.

Planning permission was recently granted for a covered area to an existing outbuilding (TCP/03999/F), which contained a condition restricting its use to purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. The applicant has indicated in a covering letter that he intends to use this covered area to store the buses.

The garden area is bounded by one metre high walls and was formerly used as a vegetable garden with a number of fruit trees remaining. The south and east boundaries of the site are bounded by rear gardens of adjacent properties. There are views northwards towards Niton Down. On the western side, there is an old bakery building, which formed the basis for the previous application. Four buses dating from the 1930s are currently stored on the site and are parked in pairs; two are covered by blue tarpaulin. The applicant plans to restore the buses as a hobby over a period of two or three years and then to display them at local shows. The applicant states in his covering letter that restoration work would include ‘general carpentry and painting and occasional use of electric tools’. The four buses are presently not visible from the public vantage points within Niton and storage under cover will ensure that they are kept in one place on the site.

Relevant policies are considered to be Policy D1 ‘Standards of Design’, Policy B2 ‘ Settings of Listed Buildings’ and Policy C1 ’ Protection of Landscape Character’ of the IW Unitary Development Plan. Policy D1 seeks to ensure that development does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings, while Policy B2 will not permit proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or curtilage of a Listed Building. Policy C1 ensures that proposals must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea. Given the repair work to the vehicles is of a low key nature and that using the covered area to store the vehicles will ensure that any visual impact will be minimal, it is considered that the proposal conforms with the above policies. There are no highway objections to using the existing access to the site. In addition, the land to be used is approximately 40 metres from the Listed Building and so it is considered that its character is not affected.

Reason for Recommendation

The use of land for the parking of buses is compatible with a residential area due to the limited nature of the repair activities and I consider that at its present level, the use would not detract from the amenities of neighbouring properties or the quality of the surrounding landscape, however, the number of buses should be restricted to four in total in order to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Recommendation     –      Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Cowes Town Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineers comments are awaited.

Application is subject of three letters of objection, two from residents of Newport Road (on being a neighbouring property owner and the other being opposite the site) and the third letter from a resident of Pelham Road. The points raised are summarised as follows:

Proposal will result in additional traffic entering Newport Road which would create a highway hazard.

Any access onto Newport Road will have insufficient visibility thus causing highway hazard to pedestrians and other road users.

Proposal would result in loss of 20 garages thus resulting in increased pressures on on-street parking in the area which is already at breaking point. Also concern expressed that restrictive on-street parking will be necessary opposite any proposed access to this development.

One neighbouring property occupied by persons with disabilities are concerned that this proposal will present difficulty for those occupiers to park their motobility car outside their premises.

One adjoining property (Trent House) is a residential care home and development on this site is likely to cause disturbance and disruption to occupiers at that home.

One adjoining owner considers proposal represents back land development and overdevelopment and is likely to create overlooking, increased possibility of trespass and noise disturbance.

Evaluation

Application relates to elongated site of increased width in its eastern half currently accommodating 20 lock up garages situated on the eastern side of Newport Road approximately 55 metres north of its junction with Stevenson Road. Site slopes from west to east to a rear boundary which abuts a service access road. This road provides vehicular rear access to housing association development which fronts Arctic Road further to the east.

Newport Road frontage is approximately 14.5 metres wide and adjoins detached property number 42 (Trent House Residential Home) whilst adjoining to south is detached dwelling number 48 (Brooklyn House). Both these properties along with other properties in the area are traditional Victorian properties of some substantial height split level in nature reflecting the falling land. The garage block immediately abuts and forms the boundary to number 42 Newport Road whilst the boundary between the site and number 48 in the form of a 1.8 metre high wall which extends across the service access road at the lower end. The garages themselves are in a poor state of repair. Applicant advises that of the 20 garages 8 are used for parking and 12 for storage. The single garage/stable block which fronts Newport Road is used as storage.

In January 1990 outline consent was granted for two and three storey buildings to provide three flats with access off Newport Road the western part of the site which fronts onto Newport Road. That consent was allowed to expire and a further outline consent was granted for similar development in March 1995.

In late 1996 the garage site was subject of a Section 215 Notice due to its derelict condition with a necessary action being taken by the owner to rectify that situation. Also additional security fencing was erected following consent granted in October 1996.

Outline consent is now sought for the principle of residential development with all matters reserved apart from access. Application does not indicate any specific density but does indicate in illustrative form development between Trent House and number 48 Newport Road with access on the southern side leading to further development in the bottom half of the site in the form of courtyard scheme with proposals being served by parking spaces strategically located. It is important to appreciate this is only an illustrative plan and does not form part of the application. Applicant states in his supporting letter that the development will be in excess of 30 units per hectare and that any proposal is unlikely to provide more than one car space per unit.

Policies are summarised as follows:

Strategic Policies: S1 and S2

Policy G4 - General Locational Criteria

Policy D1 - Standards of Design

Policy D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site

Policy H4 - Unallocated Residential Development

Policy TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

Policy U11 - Structure and Services Provision

Members attention is also drawn to PPG3-Housing which encourages efficient use of urban land with particular reference to brownfield sites to take pressures off greenfield sites.

Members will note from the planning history that approximately half this site has been the subject of past approvals albeit those approvals having expired. This proposal extends the land further to the east and if approved would increase the amount of development. The main issue therefore is whether the location of this brownfield site particularly its relationship to surrounding dwellings make it suitable for residential development. It is appreciated that the eastern half of the site does stand between the rear of properties however both the sloping nature of the site and the distances from those properties lead me to the view that the site is appropriate for residential development. I am satisfied that a scheme could be achieved possibly in the form of a courtyard scheme which would avoid any direct overlooking of adjoining properties.

With regard to potential traffic implications Members will note that the site currently accommodates approximately 20 lock up garages which in themselves have the potential to generate traffic. When compared with the development potential of the site is unlikely that development could be achieved which would either equal or exceed that number or vehicles. Any development of 20 units would be at a density of 133 units per hectare which quite clearly would not be appropriate on this site although it would be the type of site where a fairly high density of development could be achieved. This does not mean to say that any residential development on the site would not be seen as an opportunity to achieve the best possible access. I certainly do not consider that development of this site should in itself contribute to on-street parking.

I accept that the loss of the lockup garages may well result in those who rent those garages having to park on the street however Members will note that only 8 of those garages are currently used for accommodating a vehicle.

In summary I consider the site is acceptable as potential for development in principle although details would need to be carefully considered to have minimal impact on neighbouring properties. I consider that the traffic likely to be generated from any scheme on this site along with parking should not be any greater than currently attracted by the current use and indeed it could well be less although this is countered by the fact that 8 lock up garages will be lost for local use, although this issue remains the subject of consultation with the Highways Engineer.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider this outline proposal is acceptable for the reasons given above.

       Recommendation - Approval (subject to the views of the Highways Engineer).

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report on application no. TCP/24915/P1076/02 (item no. 13).

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds that three storey building would be too high and totally out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings and with the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Highway Engineer considers that proposals envisaged in this application have implications affecting the highway and he recommends refusal on grounds that the information accompanying the application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of vehicle parking and access to enable the Authority to fully consider the effects of the proposal.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer advises that, although he would welcome an improvement to the existing single storey extension at the northern end of the Albion Hotel, he considers the proposal as submitted would prove to be detrimental to the AONB on grounds of its scale, and consequential impact on the surrounding area, particularly when viewed from Freshwater Bay and to east of site and proximity of the three storey element to Gate Lane. He does not consider that proposal would reflect the landscape, would be highly visible and would cause an overdeveloped and hemmed in feeling as you approach the bay from the west. He also comments that site is within Heritage Coast where there is a presumption in policy terms against new build and that this should also be relevant to an increase in capacity of those buildings/facilities already in operation where this involves major extension works. Having regard to these comments, he objects to proposal in its current form on grounds of its detrimental impact on the AONB and Heritage Coast which is contrary to policies C2 and C4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Environmental Health Department advise that they have no adverse comment with regard to application.

Application has attracted total of nine letters of objection, six from local residents and letters from National Trust, Freshwater Bay Residents Association and Islandwatch. Grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Height of extension would have negative and domineering effect on the locality of the bay and would be out of keeping with the existing hotel buildings.

Three storey building would have adverse impact on views into and out of the bay and would obliterate the view of Stag Rock from Gate Lane.

Unable to ascertain height of buildings from plans and what effect structure would have on view of bay, beach and cliffs - whilst plan at scale of 1:100, no dimensions are marked. Need for dimensions critical in respect of distance of building from edge of Gate Lane and width and shape of drive off highway.

Proposed "drop off point" as detailed on plans located at point where road narrows, with poor sight lines and there is very poor provision for pedestrian traffic either side of the road.

Drop off point located opposite Coastguard Lane from which visibility is not good.

Traffic from access road to east of Albion Hotel and car park to west causes interruption to flow of traffic - current scheme does not address this problem although it seems that set back of building from line of current structure will improve visibility.

Due to lack of footpaths in the immediate locality, pedestrians use road - proposal will exacerbate situation with pedestrians competing with users of the proposed hotel entrance/drop off area.

Plans do not provide adequately detailed information of the proposed drop off area.

Vehicles queuing to access site would project into road - proposed access would create hazard for highway users.

One resident comments that the single storey flat roof building, previously used as a cafe, has become an eyesore and its demolition is welcomed.

Whilst objecting to the current proposal, Freshwater Bay Residents Association suggest that two storey building would enhance hotel and would not interfere with view of bay when approaching from west along Gate Lane.

Three letters have been received from local residents in support of proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Demolition of existing dilapidated single storey element and extending and upgrading establishment would be very advantageous and improve Freshwater Bay.

Application follows series of proposals which have been turned down resulting in bay becoming more and more derelict.

Height of extension no higher than seaward end of the hotel and certainly not as high as Afton Down House on other side of road - will not obscure view of bay.

Northern end of building detracts from attractiveness of rest of hotel.

Site is in Heritage Coast - Freshwater Bay should be restored to the beauty spot it once was with Albion Hotel as the focal point.

Evaluation

Application relates to the Albion Hotel situated on western side of Freshwater Bay. Building is prominent within and dominates the bay. East facing section of hotel is a combination of two storey and single storey buildings with pitched roof whilst element immediately adjacent Gate Lane is constructed under a flat roof. In contrast, the southern/western section of the hotel is of more modern appearance and construction, three storeys in height on seaward side and single/two storey in height facing car park fronting Gate Lane, all under a flat roof.

Planning permission was granted in April 1998 for alterations, extensions and refurbishment of hotel to provide accommodation including forty seven additional bedrooms, reception area, foyer, indoor swimming pool, additional first and second floor extensions under pitched roofs and raised tower. Proposal also included demolition of single storey cafe, new single storey replacement cafe, resurfacing and seasonal use of car park area as open air cafe and formation of footpath and alterations to car park access. Proposal involved significant additions to building, effectively increasing its height by an additional storey, with the exception of the cafe element adjacent Gate Lane which remained single storey in height. Because of sensitive nature of the area and desire to ensure that if the development took place, it did so fairly quickly, a three year time limit on the consent was imposed, thus this permission has now expired.

Planning permission was refused in March 2002 for demolition of single and two storey building at northern end of hotel and construction of a three storey extension to provide bedroom accommodation, new entrance and associated office accommodation together with alterations to existing bedrooms. Application was refused for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal by reason of its position, size, mass, design and appearance would be intrusive, out of keeping with the original building as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities and character of the locality, contrary to policies S6, G4 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2.      The application site is within an area designated by the National Parks Commission under Section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the proposal would be detrimental to the character of the area by reason of its position, size, mass, design and appearance and would be contrary to policies C1 and C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Current application seeks planning permission for identical proposal to that refused in March of this year.

Site is located outside settlement of Freshwater as defined by development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. In addition, site is shown to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast and a Wild Bird Sanctuary. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

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

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

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

T3 - Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C4 - Heritage Coast.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

Determining factors in considering application are whether size, scale, design and general appearance of extension are considered to be appropriate or would be out of keeping with the existing building and surrounding area to the detriment of the amenities and character of the locality, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. Furthermore, having regard to relatively recent refusal of planning permission for identical scheme, it is necessary to consider whether there has been any change in circumstances or factors which would justify a different decision.

It is recognised that the tourist industry contributes significantly to the economy of the Island and the Council would wish to support appropriate proposals for tourism accommodation and facilities. In particular, in accordance with policy T1 of the Unitary Development Plan, proposals which promote and support tourism and/or seek to extend the tourism season will be acceptable in principle, provided they minimise any detrimental or adverse impact. As the applicant and his agent point out in their supporting information, the current proposal involves provision of accommodation associated with an existing accommodation site and will also facilitate the upgrading of the existing accommodation. Therefore, I am satisfied that proposal complies with policy T3 of the plan. However, it is also necessary to have regard for other policies of the plan which seek to ensure that proposals are of an appropriate design and do not detract from the character of the area. In this respect, policies C1, C2 and C4 are considered to be particularly relevant and place emphasise on ensuring that proposals do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape, especially those designated for their landscape value.

The Albion Hotel is one of the largest hotels in the West Wight and is considered to be an important asset to the tourism industry. Therefore, I do not consider there to be any objection in principle to an extension to the building, particularly where this will facilitate or lead to further upgrading of the existing accommodation. However, having regard to the prominent position occupied by the building, the design of any extension needs to be of the highest standard and its scale must relate well to the existing building and the surrounding area. In this instance, the proposed extension would be partially on the site of the single storey element located adjacent Gate Lane frontage and which is proposed to be totally removed. It will occupy a prominent position. Therefore, having regard to the height and mass of the extension, particularly when compared with the character and scale of the original building, it is considered that the proposal would be visually intrusive, particularly when viewed from eastern side of the bay and when approaching site along Gate Lane from the west.

Whilst it is accepted that planning permission has previously been granted for substantial additions which would result in a building of significant mass, this formed a comprehensive scheme having continuity and which maintained the general theme of the present building, reducing from four storeys at the southern end of the site to single storey at the north, thus maintaining a single storey element close to Gate Lane. In contrast, I consider that the design, scale and mass of the current proposal is unrelated to the character and appearance of the building and would result in a dominant feature which would be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the amenities and character of the locality.

Current application is accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal which is attached to this report as an appendix. I also attach as an appendix information provided by the applicant prior to the meeting at which the previous application was considered. In addition to this information, a meeting was recently held at the Seaclose offices attended by Officers of the Council and the applicant and his agent. Matters discussed at this meeting included the need for the extension, which is addressed in the documents appended to this report, and the site conditions which present difficulties in providing the required accommodation within a two storey extension. In addition, the applicant expressed concern regarding comments contained in the previous report and the potential for this to be misinterpreted. In particular, representations received in respect of both the previous application and the current submission express concern that extension would obscure view of Stag Rock when approaching from west along Gate Lane. I accept that this would not be the case and it should be noted that existing single storey element encroaches closer to frontage with Gate Lane than proposed extension. However, I remain of the opinion that the extension, by reason of its scale, mass and general appearance, and particularly its height, would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area in general. During the recent meeting, these factors were discussed and applicant disputed that extension would be visually prominent or would detract from the character of the locality. Whilst he was invited to submit further information including photographs to support this view, to date no such information has been received.

Whilst objectors to the proposal have raised issues regarding adequacy of drawings, and in particular the fact that they are not dimensioned, I would advise Members that it is a requirement that all plans accompanying planning submissions are drawn to a recognised metric scale or, in the case of some straightforward proposals, plans should contain metric dimensions. In the case of the current submission, the plans are prepared to a recognised metric scale and I am satisfied that they contain adequate information to enable the Authority to assess fully the impact of the proposed extension in the landscape.

Whilst Highway Engineer has recommended refusal to current application on grounds that the information accompanying the submission is inadequate and deficient in respect of vehicle parking and access to enable him to consider the effects of the proposal, it should be noted that he raised no objection to previous application which included a greater level of information in this respect. Therefore, I do not consider that this issue would be insurmountable. However, Members will note from above comments that despite fact that agent has been invited to submit further information, to date none has been received. Section of road adjacent northern end of building is narrow with restricted pavements. Proposed extension would not project as close to road as existing single storey element and is likely to result in improvements to sightlines across this corner, particularly from the access road to the east of the hotel and from the access to the car park. This would provide a safe haven for pedestrians. Nevertheless, I do not consider that such benefits would be sufficient to justify approval of application for development which would have significant and adverse impact on the landscape of the area, designated as an AONB.

Notwithstanding the above comments, and in the absence of adequate information in this respect, additional reason for refusal suggested by Highway Engineer is considered appropriate.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, the size, scale and design of the proposed extension is considered to be inappropriate, out of keeping with the original building, and would be visually intrusive, forming a dominant element, to the detriment of the visual amenities and character of the locality which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast.

Furthermore, I do not consider that there has been any change in circumstances since refusal of the previous application and no additional information has been forthcoming which would justify a different decision.

               Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer to be reported.

Environmental Health Officer requests conditions.

Although no representations have been received as a result of statutory publicity, there has been continuing correspondence between an adjoining occupier (who was notified of receipt of the application) and the Enforcement and Environmental Health Officers. A recent letter to the Environmental Health Officer (copied to the Chairman of the Development Control Committee) avers that noise levels have not reduced, that nuisance occurs from 7.00 am to 11.30 pm seven days per week. Continuing noise, day and night, plus failure of effective controls is worrying, affects health and well being. Retrospective approval of unsuitable extract equipment is not a satisfactory outcome.

Evaluation

Full planning permission sought for the retention of the kitchen extraction system which is located on a section of flat roof on one of the buildings at the rear of the premises used for the consumption of food and drink and which trades under the name of Joe Daflo's located on the southern side on the High Street. To the east is the Hogshead which is also a food and drink outlet whilst to the west is the vacant cinema building for which planning permission has been granted for a similar use.

The extraction system which measures 1.59 metres x 2 metres x 0.8 metres contains a three stage filter with a motor fan. The facility was originally installed at the beginning of this year on the roof of another out building at the rear of these premises, in a position closer to the rear boundary. Beyond the wall that forms the rear boundary is a small enclosed yard with a pair of gates opening out onto the main rear garden area of a residential property fronting Pyle Street. Since its installation, the Environmental Health Officer has been monitoring its noise output as a result of a complaint. The unit was relocated at the beginning of July 2002 moving it some five metres further away from the rear boundary. The additional benefit has also been that the ducting running from the kitchen to the extractor unit has been rerouted and no longer runs across the top of the rear boundary wall.

The extractor unit now sits on a section of flat roof flanked on two sides by higher outbuildings.

The site lies within the town centre as defined on the Proposals Map to the Unitary Development Plan and also within the designated Conservation Area.

The determining factors with regard to this application are considered to be firstly whether the presence of the extractor unit has any adverse impact on the visual character of the Conservation Area and secondly whether its operation is detrimental to the amenities of nearby residential properties.

With regards to the first point, the extractor unit and ducting cannot be viewed from the High Street but can be seen from the service passageway which runs between the applicants property and the adjoining former cinema building and partly from the small enclosed yard at the bottom of the adjoining residential property. However neither position offers a full view and under these circumstances, I do not believe the proposal affects the visual amenities of the Conservation Area or those of any adjoining property, providing it is appropriately coloured.

Regarding the impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties by virtue of the noise levels emitting from the units particularly in the evening. I am advised that because of the nature and specification of the extractor unit the noise levels emanate from the passage of air coming out of the machine. To reduce noise, the air flow has been directed upwards to stop it bouncing off nearby walls. The Environmental Health Officer has taken measurements at the rear of the neighbouring residential property and based on these, his comment on the current proposal is to recommend conditions to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. The specific conditions proposed relate to the operating hours for the extractor unit and that the noise emitted from the system should not exceed set levels.

In conclusion, although it was recognised when the extraction unit was first installed that the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority was required it was unclear for some considerable time that an application could be supported following the earlier recordings of noise levels taken by the Environmental Health Officer which indicated a problem. Although the operator sought to mitigate the original noise level problems by adapting the extractor unit it is only been following its relocation that a satisfactory conclusion has been identified and this has formed the basis of the current application. The potential visual impact of the installation is minimal the Environmental Health Officer believes that subject to appropriate conditions there should be no adverse impact on nearby residential properties.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report it is considered that the retention of the kitchen extraction system can be supported subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure the amenities of nearby residential properties.

       Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer considers the application to have implications affecting the highway and recommends refusal on the following grounds;

1.The formation and use of an additional access to the classified road at this point would add unduly to the hazards of highway users by virtue of the restricted visibility in a south easterly direction, together with the likelihood of vehicles reversing into (or out of) the site.

2.The proposal does not provide adequate facilities to enable vehicles to turn on site and so enter and leave the highway in a forward gear.

3.The information accompanying the application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of an adequate scale layout plan.

Totland Parish Council request that conditions be imposed to ensure that vehicles enter and leave the highway in a forward gear, and parking be restricted to one vehicle.

Evaluation

Application relates to a semi-detached property located on the southern side of The Avenue and on the corner of Princes Road (locally known as Upper Princes Road) and The Avenue. Traffic flows only one way along this section of Princes Road; that being in a northerly direction.

Application is retrospective seeking the retention of a vehicular access onto Upper Princes Road.

Recent planning history indicates that in March of this year planning permission was refused for the vehicular access and hard standing on the grounds of inadequate turning being provided.

Main considerations are the impact that the development will have on the safe movement of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic and Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan policy.

The site is shown to be located within the development envelope of Freshwater/Totland as designated in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Policy TR7 is relevant and states that planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of the following matters for highway safety:

       (a)   That the proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular, buses, bicycles and pedestrians;

       (b)   That any new road layout including vehicular access are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.

The Highway Engineer made additional comment;

"It was evident form a site inspection that the existing, unauthorised access has been in use by more than 2 or 3 vehicles. As it is unlikely that it could effectively be prevented by a planning condition, in practice the probability of turning being available for any one vehicles is small. In the circumstances, I consider refusal to be the only appropriate recommendation."

Taking the above points into consideration it is my opinion that the interests of highway safety are of paramount importance and that given the Highway Engineers comments I have no other option other than to recommend refusal. As the access is still currently in use, I also consider it prudent to recommend that Enforcement Action is authorised to secure its closure within a time scale of one month to comply given the hazardous nature of the access.

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 application is contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as the development does not accommodate.

1.Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

2.Recommendation - That Enforcement Action is authorised to ensure the closure of the access and a reinstatement of the boundary treatment with screen fencing of height and construction to match that on either side of the maintained access, with a one month period for compliance.

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council raise no objection providing area is within development envelope.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

The Tree and Landscape Officer advises that there are many trees on this site which are still worth protecting. She expresses view that the extensions as proposed at either the north eastern corner or north western corner of the existing building would be unacceptable in terms of the impact on trees, landscape or architecture. In particular, she comments that at the north eastern corner there are trees, including a protected beech which would need to be removed but whose loss would not be significant as it has now mostly died back. Further to the north there is a well shaped sycamore which would be lost as well as a well shaped lime which would be too close to the building and would sooner or later have to be removed. In addition, she advises that a Monterey cypress to the north west of the proposed block of four dwellings would also be too close and would, in due course, have to be removed. She suggests that moving the block of four houses further south may result in loss of fewer trees. With regard to the proposed extension on the north western corner of the building, she considers that this would also be too close to a Monterey pine and oak tree, both of which are protected, and for this reason the proposed development should be refused. The Tree and Landscape Officer suggests that more appropriate location for development would be to south and west of existing building in such a way as to form an attractive courtyard at the end of the drive.

Following receipt of revised plans, further consultations have been carried out with the Tree and Landscape Officer. She advises that, notwithstanding the alterations to the scheme, the sycamore would still be lost, although it should be possible to retain the lime and the Monterey cypress. Therefore, she withdraws her objection to the element of the proposal to the east of the original building. However, she still has reservations about the proposed work at the north western corner of the building.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service consider proposal to be satisfactory, subject to access to existing premises being maintained at all times for emergency vehicles.

Six letters have been received from residents of the Heathfield Meadows development, of which one does not indicate whether they support or oppose proposal, two consider it to be unacceptable in its present form and three raise no objection. Letters received raise the following issues:

Preference for dwellings to be sited further into scrub land (northerly direction).

Desire to see access to rear of flats maintained particularly for those residents with invalid buggies.

Overlooking/loss of privacy from proposed houses.

Limited space between dwellings and existing boundary fence.

Access to lawns to rear of Heathfield House must be maintained for use by residents.

Concern that access must be maintained for emergency vehicles.

Design of flats is excellent and houses are in sympathy with the existing buildings.

Extension to complete flats considered satisfactory. However, proposed houses considered too close to main house and will cause disruption - ample land in the scrub area away from the house.

Suggestion that parking for houses could be along access drive - no parking should be permitted in protected woodland in front of house.

Development occupies area allocated for residents parking.

Resident questions whether there should be access from the rear of the two flats - access should be along existing paths.

Development will lead to increased use of access from site to public highway - only footpath to opposite side of road - suggested there should be warning signs and crossing for elderly/disabled with road surface markings and severe speed restrictions.

Evaluation

Application relates to residential development on western side of Heathfield Road. Existing building sits back from road in quite substantial grounds and is accessed over private drive, off Heathfield Road, approximately 140 metres north of its junction with the Sheilings. Original building, constructed of natural stone with yellow brick quoins and dressings under slate roof, was formerly used as an hotel and was converted into flats pursuant to planning permission granted in February 1989. This consent involved extension and conversion of the building to provide total of eleven flats. Whilst conversion was carried out, the extension to the building was not constructed.

Building has been extended in south western corner with two storey addition to provide further four flats. This formed part of larger scheme for total of eleven flats in two, two storey blocks approved in April 1991. As this scheme has been commenced in part, permission for the remainder of the development involving seven flats in a two storey extension on the northern side of the building remains valid.

Determining factors in considering current application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether size, scale, design and general appearance of additional elements is appropriate or would detract from character of locality, including impact on/loss of trees, and amenities of existing residents within the development.

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be immediately adjacent but outside the defined development boundary. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland.

In general, further development outside the development boundaries defined in the Unitary Development Plan would be contrary to policies which seek to resist development in such areas, unless it falls within a category, specified in other policies of the plan, which may exceptionally be permitted. However, the extant planning permission for seven units of accommodation on this site is clearly a material consideration relevant to the determination of the current application. In this respect, the current proposal involves provision of six units of accommodation and therefore represents a reduction in the total number being provided on the site. Therefore, in this instance, I consider that the planning history of this site is an important material consideration which should be given appropriate weight and which outweighs the general policies which seek to resist further development in such locations. I consider that, should Members be minded to approve application, permission should be subject to modification of the previous permission, effectively revoking the consent insofar as it relates to the outstanding element.

Turning to the effect of the proposal on the character of the locality, I consider that, having regard to location of site, set back off public highway, greatest impact is likely to result from loss of trees. In this respect, it should be noted that majority of trees within the site are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. Whilst noting comments of the Tree and Landscape Officer, I consider that a number of other factors must be taken into account in this respect. With regard to potential impact of the extension to the main building on adjacent trees, it should be noted that the previous scheme, which is subject of an extant permission, involved a significantly larger addition which would encroach much closer to, and would potentially have adverse effect on these trees. Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that this element of the current proposal will not have significant or adverse effect on these trees or that this would provide sustainable reason for refusal of the application.

With regard to the units to be constructed adjacent the eastern boundary of the site, Members are advised that the proposal was the subject of pre-application discussions with the applicant and consideration was given to location of this element to the south of the existing building, on the opposite side of the parking area, as suggested by the Tree and Landscape Officer. However, I am advised by the applicant's agent that part of this area is within the control of a housing association, thereby dictating the position of any proposed building. Having regard to this factor, he expresses view that construction of additional units on the area within his client's control would have greater impact on and result in loss of more trees than current proposal. Therefore, following receipt of Tree and Landscape Officer's comments, negotiations have been carried out with applicant's agent and further plans submitted showing the four units adjacent eastern boundary repositioned approximately three metres further south in order to minimise impact of proposal on adjacent trees. Those trees which would be removed as a result of the development are not considered to be of any particular merit and their loss would not justify refusal of the planning application.

The additional elements are considered to be acceptable in terms of size, scale, design and general appearance and I am satisfied that, subject to use of appropriate materials, the proposal will not detract from the appearance of the development or the character of the locality in general. In particular, I consider that the four additional units to be located adjacent the eastern boundary of the site would remain subordinate to the larger main building. Whilst these units would have little or no designated private amenity area, it should be noted that proposal also includes landscaping of remainder of land to rear of the original building which, it is understood, would be for communal use of all residents within the development. I consider that such landscaping will make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site.

Having regard to location of property and extent of the ground surrounding the building, I am satisfied that proposal will not have adverse effect on adjacent properties. Furthermore, I am satisfied that proposal will not detract from the amenities of existing residents within the development. In particular, the proposed extension to the building is significantly smaller than the previously approved extension for which permission remains valid.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, whilst outside the development boundary, given the planning history of the site, proposal is acceptable in principle and that proposed additions are compatible with the existing development and will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of adjacent properties and existing residents of Heathfield House.

Recommendation - Approval (Subject to voluntary modification, without compensation, of the planning permission granted under reference TCP/11594T/S/26011 insofar as it relates to the provision of a two storey block on the north western corner of the building to provide seven additional flats)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer considers that proposal has potential for causing odour nuisance and/or disamenity to the occupiers of domestic premises in the near vicinity, especially the flats proposed above the retail development. Therefore, he recommends condition, should application be approved, requiring provision of extract ventilation system.

Following consideration of proposal as originally submitted, Architects Panel made the following comments:

1.The Panel felt that the submission was of poor standard, it lacked information regarding adjacent buildings and in particular the street scene which the Panel felt was important in this location.

2.The screen details indicated on the stairwell were very imprecise and given that this was an important element of the design, details were required of this.

3.The Panel were of the opinion that the clock tower in the corner was totally unnecessary, the design should be strong enough to turn the corner on its own accord.

4.Having looked in some detail at the construction, particularly round the windows, it was felt that the actual details of the construction were very poor and further information was required on this.

5.Given the location of this building, the Panel were of the opinion that this was an important site and that the design as produced was a missed opportunity.

Two letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

No parking provision for proposed flats or customers of restaurant and no access for construction vehicles.

Inadequate parking spaces for the existing houses in Tennyson Road leading to double parking by customers of fish and chip shop causing obstruction to free flow of traffic.

Site is located on dangerous corner for pedestrians - would benefit from road improvements/widening.

Access to flats situated on most dangerous part of Tennyson Road - vehicles pass very close at this point.

Elements of building overhanging pavement would be hazard to large vehicles.

No provision for storage of commercial rubbish or refuse from proposed flats - any refuse deposited on open stairwell would encourage rats.

Open stairwell would create area where local youths could gather.

Concern expressed over height of building and location of fume extraction is questioned.

No rear access to fish and chip shop - delivery vehicles will cause obstruction in main thoroughfare.

Access to fish and chip shop/restaurant on narrowest part of road/pavement - concern expressed over safety aspects with regard to fire regulations.

Loss of light and privacy to adjacent property.

One letter received from local resident supporting proposal on following grounds:

Flats in short supply - provide essential step up the housing ladder.

Small shops and businesses in towns and villages disappearing - proposals to keep businesses viable should be supported.

One letter was also received from a local resident who, whilst raising no objection to proposal, questions whether any road improvements/widening could be carried out in conjunction with development improving safety for pedestrians, particularly children on way to and from school.

Evaluation

Application relates to site occupying prominent position on corner of Avenue Road and Tennyson Road. Site is presently occupied by single storey building constructed under flat roof with smaller two storey element at northern end. Principal building is used as a restaurant/take away premises whilst ground floor of two storey element is occupied by a wet fish shop.

Proposal involves demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three storey building providing fish and chip take away/restaurant and wet fish shop on ground floor, accessed from Avenue Road frontage, with four flats on upper floors accessed via a stairwell off Tennyson Road. Submitted plans indicate that majority of accommodation within flats would be arranged with windows in the Avenue Road and Tennyson Road elevations with no windows in the rear (west) elevation.

Determining factors in considering application are whether proposal is acceptable in principle and whether size, scale, mass, design and general appearance of building is considered to be appropriate or would detract from the character of the locality or amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Site is located within development boundary and town centre boundary as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of 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.

D1 - Standards of Design.

R1 - Existing Town Centres.

P1 - Pollution and Development.

Advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing encourages Local Planning Authorities to promote developments which combine a mix of land uses, including housing, either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops. The Guidance Note advises that this is important not only to accommodate new households but also to bring new life into our towns and cities. Guidance Note also encourages Authorities to make best use of urban land with particular reference to brown field sites.

In the case of the current proposal, site is located within development boundary for the Freshwater area and is considered to be a brown field site. Therefore, redevelopment of the site for mixed use purposes incorporating commercial at ground floor with residential over is considered to be acceptable in principle and complies with guidance contained in PPG3.

Site is located in area characterised by buildings of varying style and appearance. Whilst the buildings which presently occupy site are predominantly single storey, existing development in area includes buildings up to three storeys in height, including those on southern side of Tennyson Road, directly opposite the application site. Therefore, I do not consider that development of site with a three storey building would be inappropriate or would, subject to acceptable fenestration, detract from character of the locality. In this respect, and whilst noting comments of the Architects Panel regarding details of construction and level of information provided in this respect, I am satisfied that, with careful choice of materials, the building can make positive contribution to the town scape in this locality. Whilst applicant's agent has provided details in the submission of materials to be used in the development, I consider that this matter should be subject of appropriate conditions, should Members be minded to approve application, including a requirement that, prior to work commencing on site, the developer shall submit samples of the materials to be used for approval by the Authority.

Scheme as originally submitted included provision of a clock tower on the corner of Avenue Road and Tennyson Road. However, in response to comments of the Architects Panel and following discussions with the applicant's agent, this element has been omitted from the scheme. Further plans submitted included a perspective of the development in the street scene, providing a comparison between the proposed building and those on the southern side of Tennyson Road and the two storey development on the opposite side of Avenue Road. I consider that this information demonstrates that proposed development would be of an appropriate scale in relation to surrounding buildings.

With regard to the pierced screen to the stairwell on the Tennyson Road frontage, applicant's agent has requested that the final design and submission of further details in this respect is made the subject of a planning condition. In particular, following further discussions with him, it is understood that the flats within the development may be disposed of to a local housing association and they would wish to involve the association in any discussions regarding the final design of this feature. It is further understood that the intention is to provide a ventilated stairwell while maintaining a degree of security and that this feature would typically be formed with use of timber or concrete sections. Plans which accompanied submission show room at the foot of the stairwell and applicant's agent has confirmed during discussions that this would be a bin store. Furthermore, he has indicated that there would be no objection to condition requiring the provision of a gate to the access from Tennyson Road, thereby preventing access to this area by the general public. Applicant's agent has also confirmed that there is presently no external storage facility for trade refuse and that this will continue to be dealt with internally.

At present, the chip shop has no restriction on operating hours and Members may agree that this submission gives the opportunity to obtain some control in this area, in the interests of the amenities of nearby residents. Although the Chief Environmental Protection Officer restricts his comments to requirements for odour control and extraction system, I would suggest that a condition requiring closure of the chip shop half an hour after normal public house closing time would be appropriate.

Concerns of local residents regarding safety of highway users, particularly pedestrians, along this section of Tennyson Road have been discussed with the Council's Highway Engineer. I am advised by him that, whilst the right turn from Avenue Road is tight and the main road alignment is a little strange for west bound traffic, there are no current plans to carry out any alterations or highway improvements. Furthermore, he does not consider that lack of any such improvements as part of the redevelopment proposal would provide a sustainable reason for refusal. In any event, I consider that any such improvements would be likely to involve adjoining land which is not within the control of the applicant. Notwithstanding these comments, it should be noted that line of the building at ground floor level on Avenue Road frontage would be set further back into site than existing building thereby increasing width of pavement by approximately 300 mm. Whilst the upper floors of the building would overhang the pavement, they would not project out over the carriageway and, therefore, Highways Engineer does not consider that this would present hazard for vehicles.

Whilst noting concerns of residents regarding lack of parking provision on the site, I consider that, having regard to location of site within the town centre boundary and existing use of building as restaurant/takeaway, refusal of application on grounds of inadequate parking provision would not be sustainable. Furthermore, I consider that provision of parking on site would not be practical and would prejudice aims of the guidance contained in PPG3 to make best use of urban land.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that proposal involves acceptable redevelopment of a brown field site within the defined settlement. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the size, scale, mass and general appearance of the building is acceptable and will not detract from the character of the locality or amenities of adjacent occupiers.

1.          Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

2.          Recommendation - That decision notice is accompanied by letter drawing the attention of the applicant/agent to conditions 7 and 8, and the requirements of the Chief Environmental Protection Officer in respect of the fume extraction system. 

Representations

Gurnard Parish Council has no objections "provided that proper engineering surveys are carried out and professional advice obtained to ensure that the work would not be of detriment to the region."

Council's Coastal Manager comments as follows. "We consulted Portsmouth University with regard to the possible impact to the proposed works their response was that there would be virtually no impact on coastal processes which is the reason for the nature conservation designation. As a result we do not object to the proposed application."

Environment Agency has no objection in principle but suggest an appropriate condition requiring a scheme for maintaining flood defences be submitted and implemented in order to ensure structural integrity of those defences is maintained.

Countryside Access Manager states the following public footpath CS35 crosses the site should the application be approved the works must not obstruct or interfere with the public right of way.

English Nature initially considered that the environment implications of the scheme were not adequately addressed insofar as they related to nature conservation. However a further letter has been received following further discussions which confirms the following:

I can confirm English Nature's previous advice that this proposal will not have a significant effect on the above European site and will not require appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations and that we have no objections to the development.

Further discussions have now clarified that the proposal is in line with the current policy option in the shoreline management plan of 'hold the line maintenance or improvement'. The implications for long shore drift have been examined by Portsmouth University and detrimental effects are not anticipated.

English Nature also make the following general point:

As a point of general information you will be aware that the shoreline management plan policies are currently being reviewed through the West Wight strategy study and the environmental and socioeconomic implications of these policies will be reexamined. It is possible that the strategy steering group would consider changing the policy for the NEW 11 Gurnard Luck units. There will be full public consultation on the strategy study and the implications of any changes for businesses and residents will be an important consideration.

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Application has been subject of seven letters of objection and comment from local residents including one from the Ramblers Association. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Ramblers Association are concerned about some inaccuracies and omissions in respect of the submitted plans with particular reference to any effect it may have on the public right of way.

Concern that the work may have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the existing sea defences in the area.

The groynes may interfere with the flow of material along the beach. The beach to the east of this proposal will potentially be starved of material with detrimental result in this environmentally sensitive area. Erosion will increase beaches will disappear and service pipelines, cables exposed.

Concern that an environmental survey should be carried out to determine what effect this proposal may have on tides etc.

Application has been subject of three letters of support two of which are in the form of a pro forma letter. The letters essentially welcome the works proposed pointing out that many years ago the beach was guarded by Victorian groyne and supporters consider that these should be reinstated. Relevant paragraph from the pro forma letter is quoted as follows:

"From my dealings with the Marsh Road residents committee I am well aware that we live in an area that is not regarded as particularly important by various agencies overseeing flooding and sea defences. I am delighted that someone is willing to do some of the work and put his own money into the project to the benefit of our area."

Evaluation

Application relates to the part of the shore which is to the north west of a cafe/restaurant premises known as Salty Seadogs on the seaward side of Marsh Road to the east of Gurnard Luck. Site extends approximately 35 metres in a sea ward direction and includes a recently constructed sea wall. Submitted plan indicates three existing groynes which extend in part in a sea ward direction by approximately 15 metres reducing to 9 metres. Proposal is to extend those groynes by 15 metres in the form 9 x 3 Greenheart Timber.

Applicants have submitted revised plans providing additional information which is itemised as follows:

1.      Right of way will be as shown on attached drawing. Diagonal hatching marks new sea wall/footpath and circles mark existing route.

2.      Mean High Water Mark is shown on drawing.

3.      Seating shown on plan is for benefit of customers only. It is not public seating.

4.      Attached is approved section drawing of sea wall. There is no point marking beach level as it varies considerably but if consent is granted for renourishment then beach level will be within 3-500mm of footway. This last section of sea wall will be cast in-situ reinforced concrete - not 225 blockwork.

5.      Right of way presently unusable because 15-20mtrs on the eastern boundary/neighbouring property has collapsed. This damaged section will be rebuilt in conjunction with these proposed works.

It may be relevant to point out that with the last section of sea wall constructed the western slipway (now defunct) and middle slipway will both be removed thereby giving a level/even walkway.

Only planning history relevant relates to the new sea wall which was granted consent in October 1993.

Relevant policy is policy C6 - Coastal Protection Works on Developed Coastlines which is as follows:

"Whilst development will not be permitted along the coastline outside the limits of defined settlements works required for coastal protection may exceptionally be approved. Where such a development is acceptable the Council will seek to minimise the visual and environmental impact so as to protect the undeveloped appearance of much of the Islands coastline. Public pedestrian access will be required to be protected or provided where appropriate."

The text to the policy recognises that some exceptional circumstances coastal protection works will be required. The emphasis is placed on the need to ensure that any such works have the least visual intrusion with preference being given to 'soft' protection measures which would minimise the effect on natural beauty nature conservation and archaeological interest rather then hard engineered solutions.

In this case proposal is relatively minor in nature and relates to the extension of the three groynes by 15 metres.

Additional information has been provided confirming a number of issues with particular reference to the coastal footpath. Site inspection clearly indicates that the footpath is not continuous due to some collapse of adjacent properties. Applicant has stated that this damaged section will be rebuilt in cast in-situ reinforced concrete as part of the completion of the original approval granted in October 1993. Completion of this wall will allow the provision of a footpath which will be usable.

Applicant has carried out extensive discussion with relevant authorities and has now received the support of English Nature the Coastal Manager and the Environment Agency.

Whilst I acknowledge the concerns of local residents with particular reference to the potential effect this may have on the public right of way I consider that this can be covered by condition. Expert advice has been sought from Portsmouth University and I can do no more than accept that advice that this proposal will have no impact on the coastal processes. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report and of the opinion that these proposed works are relatively minor in nature and having contained the support of relevant agencies I consider approval is appropriate.

       Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

Representations

Highway Engineer previously recommend conditions relating to provision of access and parking in respect of previous refused application for a pair of dwellings but is now raising no comment.

Six individual letters of objection from residents of Forest Close with the points raised being summarised as follows:

Plot has been subject of recent refusal. Current proposal does not differ sufficiently to warrant a change in that decision.

Proposal will provide no benefit to the local area and would represent an intrusion into a settled residential area.

Forest Close has a unique character evident by its mature landscape and relationship to forest land and any additional development would adversely affect that character.

Development of the site would be likely to result in a cramped appearance resulting in overdevelopment.

Development of the site would increase pressures on existing infra-structure, all of which is unadopted.

Size of plot would be out of character in an area where plot sizes are particularly large.

All houses in Argyle Road and off Forest Close have a unique character and therefore any new property would be likely to look out of keeping.

Reference is made to on-street parking problem, particularly in Argyle Road overflowing into Forest Close and any additional dwelling would be likely to exacerbate that situation.

Any additional dwellings likely to contribute to highway hazards with particular reference to children who use the large common green area for play.

The position of the access would be in close proximity to a 90 degree bend in Forest Close and therefore would be dangerously located.

Proposed property would overlook the existing property in Argyle Road.

Additional pressures on sewerage system.

Proposal has been the subject of a twenty five signature petition, eighteen of which relate to occupiers of sixteen of the twenty properties in Forest Close and the remaining seven being from property occupiers in Argyle Road. Subject matter of petition is as follows:

A new development would be out of character with existing houses and have a rather cramped appearance.

Proposed property would overlook adjacent properties resulting in a loss of outlook and privacy for his neighbours.

A further household would increase the density of housing and lead to further pressures on roadside parking in an already congested area.

Result of additional traffic resulting from the development and occupation of a new house would be dangerous to the children who play in this area.

Development would have a negative effect on the estate that is working through a residents association with the Council and Home Office over an integrated plan for development.

Evaluation

Site forms part of the rear garden area of property no. 3 Argyle Road located on the north western corner of the junction of Argyle Road with Forest Close. The plot has a width of 13.7 metres by a depth of 25.9 metres. Both the applicant's property no. 3 Argyle Road and the adjoining property to the north west no. 1 Forest Close represent typical substantial detached properties of similar design and appearance within substantial plots situated within the southern half of Forest Close, extending through to the northern side of Argyle Road. Also, Forest Close has a substantial central green area with a circulatory road around it serving a total of twenty units, six of which are detached, with the remainder of semi-detached properties with those units at the northern end being more modern in appearance. There is conifer hedge along western boundary of site adjacent 1 Forest Close.

An outline application for a pair of semi-detached houses was refused in July 2002 under the delegated powers procedures with the reason for refusal being as follows:

The proposal for a pair of semi-detached houses would represent an overdevelopment of this land at an excessive density which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to a loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature, being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area.

Proposal seeks outline consent for a detached house with all matters reserved. Application has been accompanied by a plan indicating a rectangular footprint dwelling which reflects the surrounding properties. The plan also indicates access off the short length of Forest Close directly off Argyle Road. Because of the relationship with no. 1 Forest Close, the proposed dwelling is set approximately 9.5 metres forward of that property. In terms of its relationship to no. 3 Argyle Road (applicant's property), the distance is 9 metres off the rear of that property.

Relevant policies are as follows:

G4 - General Locational Criteria.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards of Development Within the Site.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

U11 - Infra-Structure and Services Provision.

Members' attention is also drawn to PPG3 - Housing which essentially seeks efficient use of urban land to take pressures off releasing green field sites for development. Such a policy is not at the expense of cramped development, however, and is seeking good quality urban development which takes into account a contextual view of the surrounding area.

Main material consideration therefore is whether or not this proposal for a detached unit of similar shape to adjoining properties represents compatible development given the characteristics of the area and can be considered acceptable infill development.

The policies mentioned above are the only criteria on which this proposal should be judged. Applicants have noted the previous refusal which sought consent for a pair, and are now seeking consent for one dwelling. The test has to be whether or not the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate such a dwelling, particularly one which could be designed to be compatible with the style of architecture of the adjoining properties. Although in garden depth terms this plot will be less than those in the vicinity I do not consider that would be to such a degree that would warrant refusal. I also consider that the location of the dwelling shown in the indicative plan suggests that a dwelling of a similar width, and therefore compatible design potential, is able to be located on the site.

The next issue is whether a dwelling on this land will appear cramped. Again, I consider the indicative plan indicates that such a dwelling will not appear cramped and this is mainly due to the fact that the dwelling is set well forward of the adjoining property in Forest Close and will therefore achieve its own setting whilst not affecting the setting of that adjoining property in Forest Close.

The site is quite clearly capable of accommodating the level of parking which should not affect on-street parking in the area.

It is accepted that the plot will result in loss of garden area to the property no. 3 Argyle Road, however, that property still has more than sufficient land to service a dwelling of that size, and again, I would not suggest that this presents a reason for refusal.

In terms of other issues, Members will be aware of the recent consents granted to the Prison Service in respect of areas of land on the three prison estates, with those consents ranging from one single plot to substantial areas on which relatively high density development could take place. Strategy behind those approvals is to accrue monies from the sale of the sites to contribute to the improvements to the existing roads and sewers and street lighting to bring them up to an adoptable standard. Any approval to this plot will not have any impact on that procedure with Planning Authority having no option but to consider on its merits with the sole consideration being whether or not it represents a suitable infill plot.

Throughout the prison estate there are similar situations which exist in respect of relationships of properties and no doubt other applications for infill plots will be received. Any such applications have to be considered on their merits. In this case, I am of the opinion that a detached dwelling can be accommodated on this plot, however, I would suggest that some of the conditions which applied to the Prison Service approvals can be adapted for this individual plot. I would also suggest an additional condition requiring any dwelling on the site to be appropriately designed in terms of height, mass, pitch of roof and overall architectural approach, similar to the adjoining properties. I do not consider such a condition would be unreasonable given the context of the area.

Many of the concerns of the objectors can be covered either by way of condition or during consideration of any detailed or reserved matter applications. Particular concern will need to be given to boundary treatment, both in respect of the northern and southern boundary. In terms of drainage, this proposal is no different from the Prison Service applications which also sought outline consent with all matters reserved apart from means of access. At that time drainage was dealt with following extensive consultation with Southern Water and the Environment Agency, with the attachment of conditions requiring relevant details to be submitted. It would be inconsistent if a different approach was given to this proposal which is only for one plot.

Finally, Members will appreciate that Forest Close has been designed in terms of its layout in a symmetrical form and a dwelling on this plot could be deemed to impact adversely on that symmetry. Members are advised, however, that the application has been accompanied by a letter from the owners of property 5 Argyle Road being opposite the application site, with that letter suggesting that similar application may be submitted if current proposal is approved, with any such application being identical (a mirror image) retaining the symmetrical aspect of the estate and Forest Close.

The portion of 1 Forest Close in relation to any dwelling on this site has the potential for overlooking. However the existence and maintenance of the conifer hedge provided screening, the distance of 10 metres between the front of 1 Forest Close and the rear of the proposed dwelling is considered sufficient, and the detail design of any dwelling should be able to address any problem by internal room arrangements and reinforcement of the screening.

I appreciate that there is a strength of view against this proposal, however, it is important that Members consider this application on its merits with, essentially, the determining factors being whether or not a dwelling can be accommodated of a suitable design without adversely impacting on the amenities of the area.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report I am of the opinion that the application site represents a suitable infill plot and is therefore in compliance with the relevant policy for the detailed reasons stated, and therefore I recommend accordingly.

               Recommendation - Approval (Revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

This report also relates to application no. TCP/6137X/P1074/02 (item no. 5).

Representations

The Highway Engineer has no comments.

The Environmental Health officer has no adverse comments.

Calbourne Parish Council have no objection to the storage of boats at Ashengrove and have no objection to the use of the building for the manufacture of pet hutches provided the original conditions are adhered to, in particular no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Isle of Wight Gardens Trust make the following comments:

·          Large items such as boats and equipment should not be stored outside buildings.

·          The overall appearance of the site as a whole is of ‘unplanned and unsightly development’ with ‘visually inappropriate signage at the main road in recent years’.

·          The development of the site is inappropriate within the boundary of a historic park of national importance.

·          A business relating to boats is not an appropriate activity for the site.

·          Would like to see a long term policy of scaling down activity on the site.

One letter of representation has been received from a local resident, the main points of objection are summarised as follows:

·          The proposals are in contradiction of the PPG 18 (Enforcing Planning Control) and should be dismissed.

·          The planning applications are inaccurate and misleading and therefore should be dismissed, TCP/6137/X should include reference to access to the storage facilities. TCP/24915 has misleading description.

·          ‘The applicants are acting in bad faith and currently are in breach of 23 planning permission grossly violating our amenity.’

·          ‘For several years we have conducted a good neighbour policy, which has been thrown back at us by applicants, who do not care for our amenity and who arrogantly act as though they are beyond reproach.’

·          Kevin Mole has outgrown the site and should be moved by the Council to another site.

·          Activity on the whole site including ‘Timbercraft’ has greatly increased since 1994, many planning permissions are being violated.

·          Feel let down by the Council as enforcement of planning restrictions is non-existent, particularly out of hours.

·          Mr Mole has deliberately not informed clients of planning restrictions, allowing unlimited access to the site.

·          A considerable number and variety of power tools are employed on site, the noise from operations causes great distress.

·          Hay barn on site also being used for boat storage and repair.

·          Buildings at Ashengrove are generally in a very bad state of repair.

Evaluation

Ashengrove consists of a series of former agricultural buildings housing a number of uses and is accessed via a single width unmade track from Newport/Calbourne Road which continues through the farm yard to access farm land to the north of the site. The buildings consist of timber framed breeze block/corrugated iron sheet buildings with corrugated sheet roofing. Access to the site is restricted by a gate adjacent to the buildings, which is controlled by a combination lock.

The relevant planning history of the site is as follows:

TCP/6137/K - Change of use of agricultural building to boat store repairs, approved with conditions, February 1991.

TCP/6137/L – Continued use of farm buildings for storage of boats and dinghies out of season, approved with conditions, June 1991.

TCP/6137/M – Variation of conditions 2 & 3 on TCP/6137/K to allow repair and testing of outboard motors within buildings, approved with conditions, January 1994.

TCP/6137/N – Variation of condition 2 on TCP/6137/M to allow sales of outboard engines and associated accessories within workshop area, approved May 1994.

TCP/6137/P – Variation of condition 4 on TCP/6137/L to allow the display and storage of farm produced timber, approved May 1994.

There are currently two applications under consideration at the site.

TCP/06137/X

This relates to the variation of a condition attached to TCP/6137/L to allow the storage of boats and dinghies all year around. Planning permission was originally granted in 1991 for the continued use of the buildings for the storage of boats and dinghies out of season, covering an area of building of some 126 square metres. Conditions attached to the permission restricted the use of the building to the storage of boats only and no outside storage of the following nature ‘no equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials or waste shall be staked or stored on the site’. Condition three states ‘the use hereby approved shall not be undertaken between the months of May and September inclusive in any one year’. The reason attached to this condition states ‘the site is in a rural area where storage uses other than for agricultural purposes would not normally be permitted, and to ensure that the building is retained in part for agricultural uses appropriate to its location.’ There was no condition restricting the hours of access to the premises.

The application seeks to vary condition three to allow all year round storage at the building. A recent site visit revealed that there were four rigid inflatable boats (ribs) and five wooden dinghies currently being stored within the building. The applicant has advised that although boats are still stored out of season by appointment, ribs owned by Ventnor "Sea Otters" are also stored on the premises and used on an occasional basis throughout the year and such customers have free access to the premises, returning boats to storage when not in use. The applicant estimates that the ribs used by the Sea Otters are used approximately once a month, being removed on Friday afternoon and returned Sunday afternoon.

Policy E10 ‘Warehouse and Storage Uses’ of the IW Unitary Development Plan requires the site to be suitably located with good highway access, the type of storage is compatible with the neighbouring uses in the locality, the design and appearance of the buildings and level of landscaping proposed are acceptable. Although an inland site is not the most obvious location for the storage of boats, the site is easily accessed from the Newport/Calbourne Road and the Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the application. The building itself is part of a former cow shed and has been used for storing boats for over 10 years. There is no lighting or electricity available to those storing boats in the building. Due to this any repair work undertaken on boats is likely to consist of low key running repairs which could be considered as an ancillary use to the main use of the building for storage purposes.

TCP/24915

This involves the use of a building in the north east corner of the complex. This former agricultural building is of a double skin construction with corrugated iron roofing, sliding doors facing out onto a concrete hardstanding and provides approximately 70 square metres of accommodation.

The business being run from the building involves the manufacturing of hutches for pet animals using wood supplied by one of the other users at Ashengrove. The business operates with two employees and the end products are made to order and delivered to the mainland. Hutches are not sold from the premises. The main tools used at the premises comprise saws, air staplers, air wire cutters and associated compressor and Environmental Health have no adverse comment to make on the use of these tools.

Policy E8 ‘Employment in the Countryside’ is relevant in this case. Employment uses in areas outside of the development envelope will be allowed provided the use benefits the rural economy, the application involves the reuse of an existing agricultural or rural building or where the development is associated with an existing farm complex or other employment operation. The use involves a small scale business using locally sourced timber, operates within redundant farm buildings and as such would conform with policy E8.

Both applications lie within the historic garden designation of Swainston Manor and policy B10 ‘Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest’ applies. Proposals which adversely affect an Historic Park or Garden or its setting directly or indirectly, will not be permitted. The site and land surrounding is agricultural in nature, rather than parkland and it is considered the visual impact of former agricultural buildings and the uses within them do not have a detrimental impact on the historic garden.

The uses are consistent with policies contained within the UDP and by approving the applications under consideration there is an opportunity to control the hours of operation and any outside storage through the use of conditions. This is particularly important in relation to application TCP/06137/X.

Reasons for Recommendations

TCP/06137/X

The building under consideration has been used for boat storage for more than 10 years. The nature of storage has changed over this time and there is now a need to store boats during the summer months and to remove them from storage and to return them to storage on an occasional basis. The proposal conforms with Policy E10 ‘Warehouse and Storage Uses’ and it is considered that in removing the condition, there would be no adverse impact on the historic garden designation as required by policy B10. However, since the original approval for the site (TCP/06137/L) did not restrict the hours of use of the building, there is now an opportunity to control this aspect of the use of the building.

TCP/24915

The use of the building for the manufacture of pet hutches use involves a small scale business using locally sourced timber and operating within redundant farm buildings. As such the proposal would conform with policy E8 ‘Employment Development in the Countryside’. In order to introduce an element of consistency between the various users within the Ashengrove site, a condition restricting hours of operation of the business would also be appropriate.

           Recommendation     -          Approval (both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART IV REPORTS – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS