PAPER B2

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/26455

Mrs A Holbrooke against refusal for demolition of garage and out buildings and construction of two detached houses land adjoining 1 Old Road, East Cowes.

 

 

TCP/20953/B

Stephenson Developments against refusal for demolition of dwelling and construction of a four storey block of seven flats with parking and alterations to vehicular access at Wilmington, Cliff Road, Totland Bay.

 

 

TCP/5685/N

Mr D Wood against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for dwelling on land rear of Queensberry, 37 Newport Road, Godshill.

 

 

TCP/11675/H

Mr & Mrs Lovelock against refusal for outline for ten houses and vehicular access land adjacent the Old Dairy Farm, Horsebridge Hill, Newport.

 

 

TCP/4323/T & LBC/4323/U

Mr & Mrs Locke against refusal of planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the demolition of a barn and a construction of annexed accommodation and provision of three dormer windows to main dwelling at Dodpits House, Dodpits Lane, Newbridge, Yarmouth.

 

 

TCP/19522/D

Mr & Mrs Adams against refusal for demolition of building and construction of a terrace of four houses at Vanner Mews Workshop, 3 Newport Street, Ryde.

 

 

TCP/414/D

Mr & Mrs Thompson against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for dwelling and garage repositioning of existing garage land adjoining and rear of White Webbs, The Mall, Totland Bay.

 

 

TCP2582/C

Mr A Wilkes against refusal for demolition of garage and outline for terrace of three town houses at 2 Parkhurst Road, Newport

 

 

TCP/9755/J

Mr N Greenhalgh against refusal for demolition of workshop and outline for detached house land rear of 69 Pelham Road, Cowes

 

 

 

2.

 

APPEALS WITHDRAWN

 

 

 TCP/22598/D

T Jones Development Limited in respect of refusal for pair of semidetached house with parking and vehicular access onto Little Preston Road on land rear of 88 and 90 High Park Road, Ryde.

 

 

 

 

3.

 

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

No new dates to report.

 

 

 

 

4.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/19380/P

Gurnard Pines Holdings Limited against refusal to vary planning condition imposed on planning permission for 42 holiday chalets to retain holiday occupancy restriction but to remove six week limit to that occupancy at Gurnard Pines, Cockleton Lane, Gurnard.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 17 March 2004.

 

 

Appeal Decision

Allowed – 22 November 2004.

 

 

Main Issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the disputed part of the condition (the six week clause) is reasonable and necessary in relation to the aims of local and national policy to support tourism.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·          The six week clause is not necessary to insure that permanent residential occupation does not take place

·          Adherence to the six week clause could leave chalets empty for most of the year

·          Long periods of vacancy would fail to make the best use of the units’ potential to generate tourism income and would not encourage the extension of the holiday season

·          The UDP policies and their justification do not refer to a need to insure that only a short term lets of holiday accommodation should occur.

·          The six week clause is unduly restrictive in the absence of proven harm

·          In the absence of any special justification for the six week clause it is unnecessary, unreasonable and unduly restrictive.

·          A new condition is imposed which states the occupation of the 42 holiday chalets shall be limited to holiday use only and shall not be used as permanent or main residences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b)

TCP/24112/B

Mr D Floyd against condition imposed on planning permission for five holiday units which requires the holiday units to be retained together as one property and not leased off or sold separately at land rear of Marlborough Hotel, Alexandra Road, Shanklin.

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Approval with this and other conditions

 

 

Committee Decision:

Approval with conditions – 4 November 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed - 22 November 2004.

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether the condition is reasonable and necessary in relation to the aims of local and national policies to support tourism.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·           Site is within the hotel policy area of the UDP.

·          It would clearly conflict with UDP policy and PPG21 for the units to become permanent dwellings in this location.

·          A condition limiting the use of the holidays to holiday use only would ensure that permanent residential use would not become established.

·          The condition as worded is unduly restrictive as is the condition limiting occupation to a six week maximum.

·          Both conditions deleted and a new condition substituted stating the occupation of the five holiday units shall be limited to holiday use only.

 

 

(c)

TCP/11608/F

Beak Brothers against refusal for the conversion of cattle shed into DIY Livery at Gatehouse Farm, Gatehouse Lane, Ashey, Ryde.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 28 November 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed – 9 December 2004.

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The effect of the proposed development on the safety and free flow of traffic

·          The impact on hedgerows and the character and appearance of the area

·          Whether the scheme would place undue reliance on the use of private cars

 

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·          Gatehouse Lane is not busy and has many passing places

·          Whilst the livery business would generate an overall increase in traffic, few of these would be made by large vehicles as was the case when the former dairy enterprise was in operation.

·          Sufficient views of oncoming vehicles could be achieved by trimming back the hedges

·          There would be no significant impact on safety or free flow of traffic and n o conflict with UDP TR7

·          The appearance of the complex of agricultural buildings is softened by the hedges along the frontage.

·          The trimming back of the hedges for improving the site lines would have a minimal impact on the screening of the buildings.

·          The important hedgerow would not be affected.

·          The development would not be unduly harmful to the hedgerows or to the character and appearance of the area and meets the requirements of the UDP

·          The Government is keen to encourage more outdoor recreation.

·          A livery base for horse riding will almost inevitably require a countryside location.

·          The general need for stables to be located in the countryside and the site’s proximity to the outskirts of Ryde weigh in favour of the proposal.

·          The scheme would not place undue reliance on the use of private cars to the extent of conflicting with the UDP.

 

 

 

(d)

TCP/10306/G

Mrs S A King against refusal of outline for a chalet bungalow on land rear of Thurstons, Playstreet Lane, and adjacent Pelhurst Road, Ryde

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 8 June 2004

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Allowed – 10 December 2004.

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          The impact of the proposed development on the street scene.

·          Whether the scheme would provide reasonable living conditions for occupants and neighbours, particularly in relation to privacy and disturbance.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The proposed chalet bungalow would be seen as an extension to the built up frontage of Pelhurst Road.

·         The scheme would not be harmful to the street scheme and does not conflict with the UDP.

·         The rear garden of the proposed development would be large enough for outdoor sitting.

·         Over looking from the first floor neighbouring property could be overcome to some degree by further boundary treatment and suitable design.

·         The new dwelling would be no closer to neighbouring properties than is normal and no reason why levels of noise from the garden should be unusually high.

·         The development would provide reasonable living conditions for occupants and neighbours and the requirement of the UDP in this regard is satisfied.

 

 

 

(e)

E/2817/S

Island Securities Limited against enforcement notice requiring exterior rendering of building to be finished in accordance with the approved plans, and for the unauthorised brick wall in Town Lane to be demolished and the ground to be levelled in accordance with the approved plan, site at corner of Pyle Street and Town Lane, Newport.

 

Officer Recommendation:

Enforcement action to secure development in accordance with the approved plans.

 

 

Committee Decision:

Enforcement action to secure development in accordance with the approved plans – 25 November 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed (subject to variation) - 15 December 2004.

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

·          Whether there has been a breach of planning control.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

·         The appellants were not challenging the requirement in respect of the rendering.

·         At the time the notice was issued and as a question of fact and degree, the building did not accord with the plans originally approved.

·         The boundary wall has been erected without planning permission.

 

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services