(a) U/135/01 Investigation into alleged motor vehicle sales from 7 Copse End, Sandown, Isle of Wight
To consider
whether the evidence currently available to the Local Planning Authority is
sufficient to substantiate that a material change of use has taken place
involving use of a residential property in connection with motor vehicle sales
which also involves the use of parking areas on the estate for the parking of
vehicles for sale and, if so, what action should be taken to address the
situation.
Background
In April 2001 a
complaint was received alleging vehicle sales and repairs from a residential
property at Copse End in Sandown.
Correspondence has been received suggesting that car trading is taking
place and including evidence to support this contention. The evidence involved records vehicles
parked at the property itself and also elsewhere on the estate, matching these
to advertisements which have appeared in editions of a local advertiser which
is published weekly. At one time, it
was suggested that six cars for sale were parked within the parking areas on
the estate.
It has also been
alleged that the occupant of the property undertakes work to the vehicles
within his front garden. Evidence has
been submitted to support the contention that what appears to be minor bodywork
is undertaken.
I have visited
the locality on a number of occasions in an attempt to identify whether there
is any evidence of a commercial motor trading business taking place. During those visits I have not observed any
vehicles displaying for sale signs although I can confirm that vehicles parked
have appeared in the local advertiser.
The matter has
been discussed in some detail with the owner of the property most recently, at
a meeting that was attended by the Enforcement Team Leader and the Development
Control Manager. That meeting took place at his unit on Senator Trading Estate
at College Close, Sandown. These are
the premises from which the proprietor of Sandown Autos does his business. During the discussions the following points
came to light.
·
The proprietor
stated he does not run the business from home but he does use the home
telephone number.
·
The garage at
Senator Trading Estate has been owned for four years and prior to that he
traded from premises at Fort Mews.
·
The proprietor
stated he does not trade from home indicating that selling cars was of
secondary concern to him with his main income being from property.
·
The proprietor
acknowledged he uses a weekly local advertiser but says all people come to the
Senator Unit to view cars and not his home.
·
The proprietor
showed us the trade plates which contain the unit’s address and other business
paperwork which also contains the industrial unit address.
·
The proprietor
acknowledged that there was a recent spate of vandalism and stolen cars from
around the Industrial Unit and that if he had a decent car he did park it at
Copse End but did not display any for sale signs.
·
The proprietor
did acknowledge that occasional body repair work is done at home but that all
the main valeting and repairs are done by one of the adjoining body repair
shops at the Industrial Estate.
·
The proprietor
stated his entire car stock at any one time was somewhere in the region of five
or six cars and at the present time these were parked at the Industrial Unit.
·
The proprietor
did suggest that in the event of him running a business from home he would have
expected the Local Planning Authority to have received more complaints.
Options
1.
To indicate to
the proprietor of Sandown Autos that, in the opinion of the Local Planning
Authority, based on the evidence available at the present time, no material
change of use has taken place at this time and consequently there should be no
further action and all interested parties advised accordingly.
2.
To advise the
proprietor of Sandown Autos that for the avoidance of any doubt in the future
he should endeavour to avoid using the communal parking bays within the
residential estate for the parking of any of the business vehicles.
3.
To advise the
proprietor of Sandown Autos that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority
the use of number 7 Copse End together with the communal parking spaces within
the Copse End Estate constitutes a material change of use in connection with
auto sales which is a use that would be unacceptable within a residential
estate.
4.
Enforcement
Action be authorised requiring the cessation of the use with a time period for
compliance of one month.
Conclusion
The main issue to
consider in this particular case is whether or not the vehicle trading business
is being run from the domestic property taking advantage of car parking in the
vicinity. To prove such a change of use
it would be necessary for a material change of use to have taken place, that
is, there would have to be clear consistent evidence beyond occasional
use.
Members will
appreciate that the simple use of a domestic telephone number to receive calls
is not indicative of a material change of use. PPG4-Industrial and Commercial
Development in Small Firms paragraph 32 working from home indicates that
planning permission is not normally required where the use of part of a
dwellinghouse for business purposes would “not change the overall character of
the property’s use as a single dwelling”.
The example given is the use of a single room as an office. When providing guidance as to the point
where a business ceases to become ancillary but grows to a level where a
material change of use is likely to have taken place the guidance suggests that
such indicators as non-residential visitor numbers, traffic noise or fumes are
appropriate. By his own admission, the
proprietor of the business has acknowledged that on occasions vehicles have
been worked on at his domestic premises.
On balance, whilst noting the complainant’s information, I do not
consider that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a material change
of use has taken place at this time.
Regarding the use
of parking spaces around the residential estate for the parking of trade cars
it is acknowledged that this has occurred but the question to consider is
whether the number of vehicles associated with this use is sufficient to have
triggered the need for planning permission.
On balance, I do not believe that the point has been reached where a
material use has taken place.
Members should be
aware that a number of other alleged breaches of planning control have been
investigated at this property over the last year including unauthorised building
in garden and extension to domestic garden.
The building was “permitted development” and concerning the other
allegation, whilst the owner of no. 7 had acquired a section of ground next to
his property, it had not been formally incorporated into his garden and
consequently no change of use had taken place.
Recommendation
1.
To
indicate to the proprietor of Sandown Autos that, in the opinion of the Local
Planning Authority, based on the evidence available at the present time, no
material change of use has taken place at this time, and consequently there
should be no further action and all interested parties advised
accordingly.
2.
To
advise the proprietor of Sandown Autos that for the avoidance of any doubt in
the future he should endeavour to avoid using the communal parking bays within
the residential estate for the parking of any of the business vehicles.
(b) TCP/1081/V Unauthorised erection of four
advertisement boards, Hazel Green Holiday Village, New Road, Wootton
Summary
To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an
Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the adverts
Background
During June 2001 a report was received alleging the
following breach of planning control
1. That four large advertisements had been erected
An enforcement officer visited the site and noted that four
new advertisements were being displayed, two at the entrance, one,
approximately two metres in from the entrance and the final sign approximately
ten metres in from the entrance. The
signs are all 1.22 m by 2.44m and all advertise the site which is a holiday
park.
Although the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 permit the display of a certain quantity of
signage at the park, the signs referred to above exceed the allowance.
The Enforcement Officer met with the Manager of the site and
explained that the adverts required consent, the Manager indicated that they
would submit an application.
In August 2001 a letter arrived at the office along with the
relevant fee for an application for advert consent, there was no application
enclosed. To this date both the
Enforcement Officer and the Registration section of the planning office have
written to the Manager to request an application, the Manager has never
responded to the letter and an application has not been forthcoming, the office
is still in receipt of the fee.
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are
considered to apply in the circumstance.
Policy
D7 Advertisements in the
Countryside
Hazel Green Holiday Village is situated on a quiet road,
running alongside Wootton Creek, traffic has to travel at a slow pace due to
the poor condition of the road and speed restricting humps. The only vehicles using the road are those visiting
the adjacent holiday activity centre and properties in Lower Woodside. Having
assessed the characteristics of the adverts and the nature of the highway I
consider that the adverts do not cause any highway safety concerns and that
they are in keeping with the surrounding area.
Financial Implications
None.
Options
1. To initiate a prosecution for the
illegal display of the adverts.
2. To take no further action in
respect of the adverts.
Conclusion.
The signs displayed require the formal consent of the
Local Planning Authority. Although an
attempt to make an application has been made this was invalidated and no
further detail has been submitted.
Having assessed the potential impact of the signs on highway safety
and the amenities of the locality, I believe that were a
retrospective application to be submitted, the adverts meet the qualifying
criteria to be granted permission. Under these circumstances I consider that
the most appropriate response is to take no further action.
Recommendation
To
take no further action in respect of the adverts
(c) DC/INV/Y2668 Unauthorised use of land for the storage and maintenance of vintage buses at Palmers Brook Farm, Park Road, Wootton.
Summary
To consider whether the
circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the
removal of the vintage buses and cars from the subject parcel of land.
Background
A complaint was received by
the Enforcement Section that a parcel of land located in the northern section
of Palmers Brook Farm and fronting the main Newport to Ryde Road (A3054) is
used for storage, mechanical and bodyworks of vintage double decker buses
without the benefit of planning consent. The Enforcement Team Leader visited
the site on 18th February
2002 and was informed by the Owner that
the use of the land is primarily to pursue his hobby of restoring vintage
double decker buses. It was indicated that the vehicles are part owned by
several people although the Council has corresponded with one individual on the
matter as he has been acting for the group. At the time of the site visit there
were a number of coaches and cars on site. It was stated that the cars and the
modern coach were temporarily stored on the land to be eventually removed by
their owners but the intention is to retain the vintage buses and take them to
shows and rallies.
The Owner was informed that
the use of the site for the storage, repair and maintenance of vintage buses
was a material change of use for which planning permission had not been
obtained. He was given the option of making a retrospective planning
application without prejudice to any decision that the Members of the
Development Control Committee may take in the determination of the matter
From the date of the site
visit the Owner was encouraged to submit an application but has failed to meet
several of the deadlines set by the Local Planning Authority. An application
was finally received by the Local Planning Authority on 11th June
2002 to retain the current use of the land for the storage and maintenance of
vintage buses. However, by letter dated 13th June 2002 the applicant
was advised that the application was
deemed to be invalid because of the omission of the block plan identifying the
vehicular access and adjacent properties and details of the existing and
proposed elevations. On 30 July 2002 the Local Planning Authority again wrote
to the Applicant advising that unless the details previously requested were
received with 14 days then the application will be treated as withdrawn. The
Applicant was subsequently advised by the Enforcement Team Leader that the
Local Planning Authority had extended several deadlines without any
reciprocation and that if the requested details were not submitted then a report
would be prepared for the next
Development Control Committee Meeting where Members would be asked to make a
formal response on how the Local
Planning Authority should react to the ongoing breach of planning control. The
Applicant has so far failed to respond and it is my opinion that any further
request would be futile.
From the information
submitted the applicant has identified the application site to be an open yard
area approximately 26 metres by 19.5 metres. To the east is a range of low
buildings with a further open yard area beyond, both of these are excluded from
the application site.
The following Unitary
Development Plan policies are considered to apply:
Strategic Policies
Policy S4 - The Countryside will be protected from
appropriate development.
Detailed Policies
Policy G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and
Villages
Policy G4 - General
Locational Criteria for Development
Policy D1 - Standards of
Design
Policy D2 - Standards for
Development
Policy D3 - Landscaping
Financial Implications
None
Options
Conclusion
Had the invalid planning
application been capable of being considered I believe that given the
circumstances outlined earlier in this report Members may have considered that
the site was capable of some use but only subject to specific conditions
relating to the nature of that use, the operating hours and improvements to the
screening of the site.
PPG18 paragraphs 8 and 9 deal with
the situation where unauthorised development could be made acceptable by the
imposition of conditions. The Local Planning Authority has followed these
guidelines through the invitation to submit a formal planning application.
Unfortunately, this formal invitation has been rejected. The guidance considers
such a circumstance indicating that where an application is not made the Local
Planning Authority should then consider whether to issue an Enforcement Notice.
The guidance suggests the following: “where an owner or occupier of land
refuses to submit a planning application which would enable the Local Planning
Authority to grant conditional planning permission, the authority would be
justified in issuing an Enforcement Notice if, in their view, the unauthorised
development resulted in an injury to amenity, or damage to a statutory
designated site, which can only be satisfactorily removed or alleviated by
imposing conditions on a grant of planning permission for development”. The
guidance does further suggest that if an Enforcement Notice is issued on these
grounds that the land owner be advised accordingly.
In the absence of a formal
application I believe it is appropriate for the Council to take Enforcement
Action in this matter. However, given the circumstances outlined above I am
minded to indicate to the land owner that the Notice has been served because of
his failure to submit a planning application at
which time the Local Planning
Authority may have granted planning consent subject to certain conditions. This
is reflected in option 2. However, if
Members believe that the fundamental use of the site in connection with the
storage activities is totally inappropriate they should only adopt option 1.
Having given due regard and
appropriate weight to the circumstances outlined above I believe that the
course of action recommended is appropriate given the particular circumstances,
the planning policy and the rights of the owner concerned.
Recommendation
1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal from the site of all the vehicles and the van body with a time period for compliance of three months.
2. To advise
the owner that the service of the Enforcement Notice has been triggered by his
failure to submit a planning application which would have enabled the Local
Planning Authority to consider whether the use was appropriate subject to the
imposition of conditions to protect the amenities of the area.
(d) TCP/19589C(E) Replacement bay windows within Listed Building at Kelmscott, 148 High Street, Ventnor
To consider the
most appropriate future course of action with regards to the continued breach
of the Enforcement Notice regarding the replacement of the windows in the above
Listed Building.
In April 1999 Listed Building Consent was refused for the
retention of replacement bay windows at Kelmscott on the grounds that the
replacement windows were considered detrimental to the character and appearance
of the Grade II Listed Building by virtue of their design, construction and
appearance.
Because the works had already taken place enforcement action
was also authorised requiring the replacement of the windows within 6-months.
An appeal was submitted against
the refusal of Listed Building Consent in September 1999.
The Enforcement Notice was served
in November 1999 with an effective date of 6 January 2000.
An appeal was lodged against the
Enforcement Notice in December 1999.
An Appeal Hearing was held on 6
January 2000 with a formal decision letter dated 3 February dismissing the
appeal against the refusal of Listed Building Consent.
In May 2000 a report was
considered by the Development Control Committee following a request from the
applicant that he be allowed a period of 5-years within which to replace the
windows. This was rejected with an
indication that the original period of 6-months should be adhered to and to
pursue the applicant for an award of costs in respect of the matters considered
at the previous planning appeal at any forthcoming enforcement appeal.
On 19 May 2000 a letter was
received from the Planning Inspectorate indicating that the occupant of
Kelmscott had formally withdrawn his appeal against the Enforcement
Notice. As a consequence of this
action, the Enforcement Notice came back into effect and the householder had
one month to submit the scheme for the design of the replacement windows and
then 6-months from the date of the agreement to implement the scheme. The submission date for the window details
was 19 June with 19 December 2000 the date by which the work should have been
completed.
Following a failure to submit the
scheme for the replacement windows within the required time the file was passed
to the Council’s Legal Section for a prosecution.
In March 2001 a successful
prosecution was undertaken in the Magistrates Court for failing to comply with
the Enforcement Notice.
After the prosecution, a meeting
was held with the Council’s Solicitor on how the matter was going to be
progressed. In that context,
discussions with the owner of Kelmscott had suggested that he had limited
financial resources and the question was therefore raised whether continued
prosecutions for further breaches of the Enforcement Notice would achieve
anything. In that context, having
established the breach by the first prosecution the question was raised whether
it would be better if the owner of the property spent whatever resources he had
on the works set out in the Enforcement Notice rather than see them being
depleted by further fines and awards of costs.
On that basis, the Council began
to investigate whether the circumstances justified the consideration of the
work being carried out by the Council with a charge then being imposed on the
property. Following the drawing up of a
specification by the Conservation Officer in April 2001 quotes were received
from two builders and these were Ł6,500 plus VAT and Ł6,800 plus VAT
(approximately Ł8,000 in total).
A meeting was held with the owner
of the property at which time the situation was discussed and he again
intimated that he did not at the present time have the financial resources to
undertake the work himself. The
possibility of the Council undertaking the work and surcharging the property
was then raised and the occupant indicated that he was prepared to sign the
necessary papers. Obviously, it was
pointed out that the Council would have to undertake further investigations
into the property owner’s financial circumstances and seek the Planning
Committee’s approval prior to entering into such an agreement.
The Council’s Solicitor has
corresponded with the property owner concerning his financial position with
regards to bank details etc. Without
going into detail, it does appear that the property owner has received a
further advance from a building society in January 2002. The property owner has indicated that this
money was less than he originally requested and has been used to consolidate
all his debts.
Any such proposal for the Council
to undertake the works and then put a charge on the property would need the
authorisation of the Committee as well as identifying a fund from which the
money could be drawn. Having
investigated this later aspect there does not appear to be any available monies
to fund such work and accordingly this proposal is no longer a viable option.
In the latest correspondence with
the property owner he has stated that he would replace the windows in two years
time, that is by May 2004.
Following the withdrawal of the
enforcement appeal the Enforcement Notice should have been complied with by the
end of 2000. Although a successful
prosecution was raised in March 2001 and the last 12-months have been spent
seeking to investigate a possible resolution to the matter, the unauthorised
windows continue to remain in place and at the present time there is no clear
indication from the property owner that the matter will be resolved.
Clearly, the Local Planning
Authority cannot leave the issue unresolved, particularly as the matter has
been tested by the submission of a planning application and on appeal. Government guidance for the Local Planning
Authority should “consider carefully what is likely to be the most effective
and cost effective way of compelling someone who is contravening an Enforcement
Notice to comply with its requirements.”
In that context, the Local Planning Authority has open to it a range of
actions and must consider which of these is the most appropriate given the
particular set of circumstances.
If the Local Planning Authority
resolves to undertake the work using the default powers under the Planning Act
then clearly it will require the initial outlay of the monies necessary to pay
for these works. The recovery of the
expenses reasonably incurred may take some time and may possibly not be
recovered until the property is next sold.
The exact sum involved would be based on updated quotes from builders
willing to do the work.
Given the
chronology of events outlined above and the continued breach of the Enforcement
Notice I do not consider that the Local Planning Authority can be seen to leave
this matter unresolved. I believe that
there are three courses of action available to the Local Planning Authority
which are highlighted in the Options section above and which have been
discussed with the Council’s Senior Solicitor.
I propose to take each in turn before seeking to identify the most
appropriate course of action in this particular case.
Regarding the
first option which is to initiate further prosecution for the continued failure
to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice, I believe that the
Local Planning Authority would have to consider whether such an action is
likely to be the most efficient and cost effective way of compelling someone to
comply with the Notice. Government
guidance indicates that a property owner must show he has done everything
reasonably expected to secure compliance with the notice and that a Judge in
one particular instance suggested that this may even extend if needed to the
selling of some land. Under the Human
Rights Act it could be considered that there is a fundamental distinction
between someone being put in a position of disposing of some land as opposed to
their dwelling.
This view is supported
by the Council’s Solicitor who has indicated that when considering whether a
prosecution should take place, there are several issues to consider, most
particularly whether the action is in the public interest. It is also suggested that there is no
guarantee that the Magistrate would treat the second case with suitable
severity and that the Council would be unlikely to recover any costs given the
owner’s financial circumstances. A
prosecution is purely punitive and will not affect completion of the required
works.
Regarding the
second option which would be to agree to an extension of the compliance time
until 30 June 2004, thereby enabling the owner to undertake the works
themselves, Members should be aware that this offer was initially rejected when
considered in May 2000. The merits of
this arrangement are that the works would be funded totally by the property
owner, although this raises the only fall-back in that given the current
difficult financial situation, there is no guarantee that the circumstances
will improve by 2004, other than the owners word to the extent that the works
will be undertaken.
Concerning the
third option which would be for the Local Planning Authority to fund the works
and then recover the monies from the property owner at some time in the future,
the protracted discussions on this matter have been an attempt to verify that
the owner’s financial situation is so acute that he could not reasonably pay
the monies required to finance the work.
Although the property owner appears willing to allow the Local Authority
to undertake the works and put a charge on his property so that the monies
could be reclaimed at a later date, I have not been able to identify any
resource within the Local Authority from which to draw such a sum and
accordingly the ability of the Local Authority to undertake works under the
default powers of the Planning Act is no longer consider it to be an option.
Having considered
the three options outlined above, I have concerns that a further prosecution would
be successful. Nor am I aware of any
available funds within the Local Authority to initiate such a works given that
the building is not a Grade I structure.
On balance, I am forced by circumstances to come back to the second
option which is to agree to an extension of the compliance time for the
Enforcement Notice. Although this may
not be the most desirable option, on the basis that the works can be recovered
at a later date, I see no alternative other than to adopt this.
Recommendation
2. To agree to an extension of the compliance time on the Enforcement Notice until 30 June 2004.
(e) TCP/20324C Amendment to layout of approved static caravans, (main site), Thorness Bay Holiday Park.
To consider what action should be taken, if any, in respect of an amended layout of approved caravans at Thorness Bay Holiday Park.
As part of an overall approval granted in 1991 for 223 new and replacement static caravans at this site, thirteen vans were approved in a “regimented” layout in the north eastern part of the site, between the main facilities building and the recreation fields. This is the main part of the site, and not that part of the site visited by Members on 5 September in connection with a determination of an application for further static vans at the north western part of the site.
Following a complaint, the
Enforcement Officer investigated and found that fourteen static vans have been
sited within this area of the site in a much more informal layout than that
approved.
It will be noted that thirteen
vans were originally approved but fourteen are now on site. This is explained by the site operators to
the Enforcement Officer by the fact that one of the vans in the area has in
fact been on site for some considerable time and was not a subject of the
approval granted in 1991. The layout of
the thirteen remaining vans has been altered from that approved in order that
they can be fitted more appropriately into the landscape, without the need for
felling mature trees.
The site has also now been
inspected by a Planning Officer who considers that the layout as set out is far
preferable to that originally approved, which if implemented, would require the
destruction of several mature trees.
The re-siting of the vans has been
the subject of complaint and a nearby resident has advised objection to the
“totally different position” of the vans now from those originally approved,
together with the fact that fourteen are on site and only thirteen were shown
on the original drawings.
The point is made that access to a
field leading down to the beach has been restricted and although this is not
necessarily the concern of the Planning Committee, the fact remains the homes
should not be there in the first place.
The suggestion is also made that other sites have been infilled with
caravans without consent.
During the Members site visit
referred to above, the local Member advised of a number of issues and potential
breaches of planning consent which had been reported to her. These are undergoing investigation and a
further report will be put before Members on these issues in due course.
None.
1. That the
revised siting of the caravans be accepted as an amendment to the scheme
approved in 1991 under reference TCP/20324C.
2. That the
re-siting of caravans be not accepted as an amendment but that a formal
planning application be submitted for their retention.
The caravans are located within a site identified in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as appropriate for permanent holiday accommodation and within an area approved in 1991 for such development. The layout of the vans as carried out on site, even taking account of the additional unit, is far superior to that shown on the approved plans in that it secures the retention of a number of mature trees which have the effect not only of screening the site but “breaking up” what would otherwise have been a regimented layout of static vans.
There is no formal route from the site into the adjoining recreation area, which is accessed from a roadway to the south east of the caravans.
Recommendation
1. That
the revised siting of the caravans be accepted as an amendment to the scheme
approved in 1991 under reference TCP/20324C
(f) TCP/21784B Unauthorised
alterations to vehicular access and formation of hardstanding, at The Orchard,
Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence, Ventnor, Isle of Wight
Summary
To consider the
service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of unauthorised works to
a vehicular access and formation of a hardstanding.
In March 2002, as
a result of a complaint an Enforcement Officer visited The Orchard and met the
owner. The Officer saw that several
metres of stone wall had been removed and a curved section of stone wall
rebuilt on one side of an access leading to a hardstanding which had been
formed within the entrance. Brick
paviours were being laid at the entrance leading into the area of hardstanding.
The stone wall is part of the
boundary to The Orchard which is a Listed Building, so in addition to forming
an unauthorised vehicular access and hardstanding damage was also caused to the
boundary of the Listed Building.
The same Enforcement Officer had
previously been to this site on 21 November 1994 as a result of an allegation
that a gap in the stone wall at this point was being used as a vehicular
access. At the time of the earlier
investigation a photograph of the gap in the wall was taken but there was no
evidence that this was being used as a vehicular access.
It appears from the large parking
area which has been formed within the woodland and from a sign which has been
erected, that this area is being used not only by the owner of The Orchard but
also by the owner of Little Orchard, the adjacent property, as parking space
for visitors who make use of the bed and breakfast facilities at his house.
A retrospective planning
application to retain the access and hardstanding was submitted in April 2002
and refused at the request of the Highway Engineer under the Part I procedure
in May 2002. A similar application was
refused in September 1995.
The access is intended to serve
The Orchard, which is one part of a substantial property divided into three
lying south of Undercliff Drive. These
units all share a single access which joins the main road just east of the
section which has subsided. One of the
concerns raised by the owner to justify the new access and parking area relates
to the difficulties of using the shared access, particularly when he has
visitors, and where they can park.
The proposed access is
unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate visibility and is therefore contrary to
Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The works also fail to protect and enhance
the special quality of the landscape 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 is therefore contrary to
the requirements of Policy C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
The Highway Engineer has confirmed
that none of the proposed works to re-open the main road will improve the
visibility situation.
There are no
financial implications for the Council.
Options
1.
To issue an
enforcement notice requiring the removal of the alterations to the stone wall
and replacement of the wall to its situation prior to the alterations. Remove the paviours from the crossover which
has been created. Remove the material
which forms a hardstanding within the parking area. Cease the use as a vehicular access and parking area. Time for compliance – two months from the
time that the notice takes effect.
2.
To take no
further action in respect of this vehicular access and hardstanding.
Conclusion
Planning
permission to retain the new access and hardstanding was refused in May
2002. At the present time the
difficulties experienced by the owner in using their original shared access are
not considered to outweigh the clear policy objection.
In my opinion, an
Enforcement Notice should be served to lay down a timescale within which the
owner of the property should reverse the damage which has been caused.
Recommendation
To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the alterations
to the stone wall and replacement of the wall to its situation prior to the
alterations. Remove the paviours from
the crossover which has been created.
Remove the material which forms a hardstanding within the parking
area. Cease the use as a vehicular
access and parking area. Time for
compliance – two months from the time that the notice takes effect.
(g) TCP/23182D Complaint regarding the construction of a jetty and the formation of a separate unit of living accommodation, at Seahaven, Port La Salle, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight.
Summary
Report to advise Members of the nature of this complaint, the ongoing investigation and the actions presently being undertaken by the Enforcement Officer in respect of the two alleged breaches of planning control.
There are presently two investigations into alleged breaches of planning control at the above property. Firstly, that a jetty has not been built in accordance with the approved plan and secondly, that a self-contained unit has been formed within the property.
On 6 July 2001, planning permission was granted to the owner of Seahaven, Port La Salle, Bouldnor to construct a jetty at the rear of his property, jutting out into the Solent. There was only one third party objection, which was received from this particular complainant. Shalfleet Parish Council, English Nature, and the Isle of Wight AONB Project Officer were consulted and raised no objection, the proposal was considered suitable for determination under the Council’s agreed delegation procedure. This involves the West Team Leader consulting with the local Member and the Development Control Committee Chairman to advise them of the nature of the objection and any planning reasons why the objection should not lead to refusal of the application. In this instance, the case Officer’s investigation along with the complainant’s objections were fully discussed with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee and it was clear that the proposal accorded with policy and the objections did not provide sufficient reason to justify refusal of planning permission.
After planning permission had been
granted a further letter was received from the complainant stating that the
decision was not a democratic one. His
complaint was fully answered by the West Team Leader setting out in great
detail why planning permission had been granted.
In May 2002, work commenced on the
construction of the jetty being built and the complainant immediately contacted
the Development Control Section stating that the jetty was not in accordance
with the approved plan but was angled towards his water frontage. An Enforcement Officer called at the complainant’s
address having been unable to gain access to Seahaven, and viewed the jetty
from the complainant’s garden. It was
not possible to accurately gauge the angle of the jetty from this vantage point
but it was possibly angled towards the complainant’s water frontage. The Enforcement Officer wrote to the owner
of Seahaven pointing out there appeared to be a departure from the approved
plan and inviting an amended plan. The
complainant was informed regarding this letter.
The owner of Seahaven wrote to the
Enforcement Officer in June 2002, stating that the jetty was a reconstruction
of the original dilapidated jetty and had existed for many years, he could not
see that the small scale plan really indicated anything that could be
altered. He stated that if the
Enforcement Officer wished to pursue this matter he would address the letter to
the contractor who undertook the work.
In August 2002 the complainant
wrote to the Enforcement Officer as there had been no developments followed by
a further letter to the Development Control Section, again objecting to the
granting of planning permission for the jetty which he stated had taken away
their privacy and affected their quality of life. A lengthy response was sent to the complainant by the Development
Control Manager stating what action had been taken by his Officers thus far.
Regarding the alleged formation of
a self-contained unit, a further letter was received in June from the
complainant stating that the owner of Seahaven had converted part of his
dwelling into a self-contained unit which he was letting out on short term
holiday lets through a letting agency.
He said that he was concerned that this self-contained unit is
immediately adjacent his wall and there was possible a fire hazard resulting from
weekly holidaymakers and their children.
The Enforcement Officer again wrote to the owner of Seahaven notifying
him of this complaint and asking him to arrange a site visit within the next
twenty eight days to view the property and discuss the complaint. The owner of Seahaven responded to the
effect that there was a separately assessed unit within Seahaven when he
purchased the property, which is believed to have been in the year 2000. He stated that what he chose to do with his
property was of no relevance to the Council.
The Enforcement Officer again
wrote to the owner of Seahaven, who is frequently away from the property,
giving him seven days to respond and arrange a site visit at which time it was
hoped that both issues could be clarified.
The owner of Seahaven has not responded to this letter.
The complainant has subsequently
provided more information regarding Seahaven which clarifies the
situation. Apparently the previous
occupiers consisted of the owner and his wife, his sister, his wife’s father
and mother, and as a result of this, the property was compartmentalised but
with entry through the front door for all concerned.
The complainant has also said that
when the present owner of Seahaven purchased the property some two years ago,
he turned it back internally to become one family house and it was only this
year that he had builders in to create a self-contained holiday apartment for
letting to holidaymakers through a letting agency.
The complainant is generating
frequent letters copied to various Officers and the local Member re-emphasing
his complaints and questioning the delay in any action.
There are no financial implications.
Before deciding on a course of action the Local Planning Authority must have properly investigated the allegations. To date access to the site has not been possible to verify if there is any substance to the allegations. I accept that the owner may not be available at all times for access to be obtained. However, the case must be progressed.
Following a meeting between the
Development Control Manager, the West Team Leader, and the Enforcement Officer,
the Development Control Manager has written to the complainant informing him of
the following:
At the present time I consider
that the Planning Contravention Notice is the appropriate way forward to
ascertain whether the allegations have any substance and I ask Members to note
the actions to date and support the current course of action.
(h)
TCP/24011A/P246/02 Two
pairs of semi-detached houses and one detached house with parking spaces (AORM)
(revised plans), land adjoining Madeira Cottage, off Bannock Road, High Street,
Whitwell, Ventnor.
Summary
To consider request from applicant’s agent to deal with alterations to the approved plans in respect of development at Bannock Road, Whitwell as a minor amendment to the approval.
Planning application seeking outline consent for two pairs of semi-detached houses, one detached house and formation of vehicular accesses was conditionally approved in November 2001. With exception of means of access to the development, all matters were reserved for subsequent approval. Subsequent application seeking approval of outstanding matters was approved in July 2002 under delegated powers.
On commencement of the approved
development, the Authority was approached by the owner of the neighbouring
property in Bannock Road alleging that work was not being carried out in
accordance with the approved plans. In
particular, she considered that the position of the pair of semi-detached
houses closest to her property was incorrect and that they were situated too
close to the boundary of the site. An
inspection of the site was carried out by the Enforcement Officer and the
Enforcement Team Leader, at which time, the footings of the dwellings had been
dug out and filled with concrete. The
distance between the boundary and the dwellings was measured and found to be
correct. The Enforcement Team Leader
spoke with the owner of the neighbouring property and advised her of the
findings, at which time she also alleged that the dwellings were situated too
far back in site. A further inspection
was carried out by the Enforcement Officer and the Enforcement Team Leader and
further measurements taken. The
measurements indicated that the pair of semi-detached dwellings at the western
end of the site were situated approximately 0.5 metre further back from
roadside boundary than shown on the approved plans.
Following discussions with the
applicant’s agent, it is understood that original plans were produced from
information derived from a survey, at which time the site was somewhat
overgrown, thereby presenting some difficulties in producing accurate survey
drawings. However, he has recently
carried out a further survey, at which time the site had been cleared and
development commenced. This has in fact
revealed that the site is deeper at the western end than shown on the approved
drawings. It is understood that the
setting out of the dwellings was carried out using south eastern corner of site
as a reference point and when overlaying the amended drawing on the approved
drawing, the dwellings are shown to be in the correct position, with exception
that distance between two pairs of semis has been reduced from 2.4 metres to
approximately 2 metres.
Letters have been sent to owners
of properties adjacent the site advising them of the receipt of amended plans
and inviting comments in this respect.
One letter has been received from the owner of the adjacent property in
Bannock Road, who originally approached the Authority with regard to the
alleged inaccuracies, raising the following issues:
Builder/surveyor
has assumed ownership of part of her land.
Proximity
of blank two storey brick wall to boundary further back on site obscures window
in adjacent property, thereby reducing amenity.
Resident
questions how two storey brick wall can be approved so close to boundary.
Linear
arrangement of rooms in adjacent property results in windows mainly in side
elevation. Owners have right to
enjoyment of their own property.
None.
1. That the
Committee formally agree that the alterations to the scheme can be treated as a
minor amendment to the approved plans.
2. That the
Committee decline the request to treat the alterations to the scheme as a minor
amendment, and require the applicant to submit a formal planning application
and advise that work on the site should cease until that application is
determined.
I consider that the discrepancies between the approved plans and the development which has been commenced on site are minor and will not have significant impact in terms of the effect on the amenities of the neighbouring property. In particular, plans indicate that a minimum distance of 5.6 metres, increasing to 6.3 metres at the rear of the dwellings would be maintained between the side wall of the objector’s property and the first house on the development site. Having regard to this factor, and the orientation of the dwellings, I do not consider that dwellings as commenced will have greater impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property. In particular, I do not consider that there would be sustainable grounds to refuse permission for development in this form and had the drawings now available formed part of the original submission, I do not consider that this would have resulted in a different decision.
Whilst I note allegations by
adjoining property owner that the builder/surveyor has assumed ownership of
part of her land, I understand that this effectively relates to the width of
the hedge and the point to which the boundary is measured and would not prove
critical to the ability of the site to accommodate the approved
development. Therefore, I consider that
this issue remains a private matter to be resolved by the parties involved.
Recommendation
That the
Committee formally agree that the alterations to the scheme can be treated as a
minor amendment to the approved plans.
(i) TCP/24163 Depositing and spreading of
soil and sub soil, land on the north side of Westhill Lane adjacent boundary to
Fort Victoria Country Park, Freshwater.
To consider a request by the owner of the land to delay any action relating to compliance with the Enforcement Notice until the end of October 2002.
Background
At the 13 March 2001 Development Control Committee meeting, Members considered a report relating to the failure to remove soil and sub soil which had been deposited on the above site. The material concern was believed to have originated for the residential development on the south side of Westhill Lane and also from another development which took place at the dairy site High Street, Yarmouth. The material in question consists of the soil and sub soil resulting from the engineering/foundation works associated with the residential developments at both sites.
Following earlier pressures from
the Local Planning Authority for the spoil to be removed and the land tidied
up, the material had been levelled out but given the predominance of clay and
heavy soils within the spoil it was considered unlikely that it would encourage
the growth of any acceptable natural cover. Spreading out the material simply
raised the ground levels and was considered to create a land form out of
character with the surrounding area. As a consequence, Members resolved to
serve an Enforcement Notice requiring its removal with a time period for
compliance of 3 months.
The Enforcement Notice was served
in May 2001 with the effective date being 3 July 2001. The notice gave 3 months
for the works to be completed which gave a date for compliance of 3 October
2001.
At the 22 November 2001
Development Control Committee meeting Members considered a report which
outlined the above background and sought an indication from the Local Planning
Authority that the Council would not initiate a prosecution for failing to
comply with the Enforcement notice whilst the land was being purchased by a
group of residents who lived in the properties opposite the site. Members agreed to the request setting a new
date of 31 March 2002.
This second deadline passed, although
letters from a solicitor acting on behalf of the local residents indicated that
they were pursuing their purchase of the land but it was taking longer than
anticipated to negotiate. It was indicated that an exchange was imminent in
July only for the Council to be approached by the existing owner indicating
that the prospective sale had fallen through and that he was now in discussions
with a further party regarding sale of the land. On 21 August 2002 the
Enforcement Team Leader attended a meeting with the present owner at which time
the failure to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice were
discussed. It was recognised that to pursue the owners to remove the material
immediately could result in heavy construction traffic mixing with the visitor
traffic to Fort Victoria Country Park. Accordingly it was informally agreed
that officers would go back to the committee seeking Members agreement to set a
new deadline of the end of October 2002 for the removal of the soil and the
wooden piles. During that visit, the poor condition of the site which is now
overgrown was discussed. The owner agreed that the weeds would be strimmed
before the committee meeting on 13 September 2002 as a sign of good faith. I
hope to update Members at the meeting as to whether this action has been
undertaken.
The failure to complete the
footpath on the northern edge of the site was also discussed and a letter has
been received from the owners indicating that once the spoil has been removed
the footpath will be formed.
None
The decision whether or not to prosecute against failure to
comply with an Enforcement Notice is discretionary. I fully accept that the
Local Planning Authority has shown a significant degree of flexibility in not
prosecuting for failure to comply with the original compliance date of the
notice which was 3 October 2001. The deferment of any action was taken to ease
the purchase of the land by a group of local residents. This has not
materialised but I consider that there are grounds for extending the deadline
until the end of October 2002 so that any contractors traffic does not mix with
the visitor traffic to the adjoining country park. Under those circumstances, I
believe it appropriate to adopt the first option outlined above but clearly
emphasise that there will be no further extension of time to the owner.
Recommendation
- To note the request from the owner and to suspend any prosecution for failing
to comply with the Enforcement Notice until after 31 October 2002. To advise the owner that this deadline must
be adhered to and that a failure to comply will result in a request to the
Legal Section to initiate a prosecution.
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services