PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1. NEW APPEALS LODGED

TCP/21296A - Mr A Barton, against refusal for construction of vehicular access and car parking bay, at 39 Newport Road, Cowes.

TCP/24292 - Mr S Darch, against refusal of outline for dwelling and garage, land rear of Taverners and 2 Church Road, Havenstreet.

TCP/24303 - C Meacher and S Rose, against refusal for continued use of premises as a flat on ground floor and house in multiple occupation on first and second floors; retention of storage shed, at 50 Carter Avenue, Shanklin.

TCP/6438E - Mrs S Robinson, against refusal for retention of vehicular access, The Dairy, South Street, Yarmouth.

TCP/24146 - Mr and Mrs P Lane, against refusal for change of use of shop to one unit of holiday accommodation, at Seaview Antiques, West Street, Seaview. Appeal withdrawn and Hearing scheduled for 22 January 2002 has been cancelled.

(a) TCP/17864G - Wroxall Timber Limited, against refusal of outline for twelve flats, at Wroxall Timber, 4/6 Station Road, Wroxall.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 23 April 2001.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 12 November 2001.

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• The loss of an existing employment site.
• The possible future reinstatement of the Ventnor to Shanklin railway.
• The scale of the proposal in relation to its surroundings.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The aim of Policy E3 is to maintain the supply of employment sites.

• The use of the site for residential purposes would result in loss of employment and would be contrary to policy.
• It would be feasible to incorporate within a scheme for twelve flats a pedestrian or cycle link which would achieve the objectives of TR18.
• Whilst intentions for reinstatement of the railway remain so unclear, there is no fundamental conflict with TR18 and housing development on this site would be no more prejudicial than the current buildings.
• Application is in outline, but it is evitable that the three storey development would be involved and this would be incongruous in this setting and would not meet requirements of D1C.

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

(b) TCP/14239A - Mr J Curling, against refusal for the demolition of bathroom and bedroom and the construction of a two storey extension, at Sandcove, Beach Road, Bembridge.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 4 June 2001.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 16 November 2001.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• Whether the size of the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the appearance and character of the area.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The proposed extension fails to respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling.
• The proposed extension would fail to be visually subservient to the existing dwellings.
• The proposal would be very prominent and would turn a modest seaside house into a much more substantial dwelling.
• When viewed from the beach, the house would appear to have virtually doubled and this would alter its relationship with the landscape setting.
• The extension is inappropriate in size and scale and conflicts with Policies H7 and D1.

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

(c) TCP/2508F - Mr R Mullins, against non-determination of outline application for tennis and rackets club with ancillary sports and fitness facilities, Fairway Park Football Ground, The Fairway, Sandown.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (had Committee been determining application) - 24 July 2001.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 21 November 2001.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• Whether the proposal would result in a material loss of open space and, if so, whether this can be justified.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• The site is allocated as open space in the Development Plan.
• The site is a well established open space despite not in active use as a sports field.
• Developing the site as proposed would result in a material loss of open space.
• Proposal would result in 90% of the site being hard surfaced or developed which would not be appropriate in scale and character of the open space.
• Policies L4 and L5 would not be complied with.
• Even if site does not become a playing field available to the public, it still has general amenity value as an open space.
• All possibilities for this site have not been exhausted and the probability of the site being used as a public playing field cannot be ruled out.

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

(d) TCP/24127 - Mrs B Drake, against refusal for vehicular access and parking area, at 61 Adelaide Grove, East Cowes.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 25 June 2001.

Appeal Decision: Allowed - 26 November 2001.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• Whether the proposal would endanger highway users, in particular pedestrians using the footway on the east side of Adelaide Grove.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• A number of properties in the same road have parking spaces in their front gardens.
• Planning permission has been granted on other properties where the depth falls short of the recommended guidelines.
• It would be inconsistent not to allow this appeal. However on its own merits, the appeal site could accommodate a parked car without overhanging the highway.
• This proposal would not demonstrably compromise the safety of highway users.

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

(e) TCP/22584C - Mr and Mrs R Faulkner, against refusal for six holiday caravans, at Lower Dodpits Farm, Warlands Lane, Shalfleet.

Officer Recommendation: Refusal.

Committee Decision: Refusal - 15 May 2001.

Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 27 November 2001.

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

• Whether the proposal satisfies the criteria required for farm diversification, particularly under Policy C15.

Conclusions of the Inspector:

• Whilst not particularly intrusive, the caravans would harm the rural character and appearance of the area.
• No Whole Farm Plan has been submitted and there is no substantive evidence submitted to indicate revenue from the caravans would be sufficient to make the farm financially viable again.
• Proposal, although small scale, appears to be an essential component to building up a new agricultural business.
• Proposal does not satisfy basic requirements of Policies C15, T3 or T9.
• Policy fails to demonstrate that there would be a long-term source of employment and income and therefore fails to meet detailed criteria of C15.

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

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