PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE -

TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2001

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

WARNING

1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART I 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 of 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 - 18 DECEMBER 2001

1.	TCP/00133/E P/01140/00 - land between Broad Lane and the B3399, Newport Road, Yarmouth, PO41	Shalfleet
2.	TCP/00853/L P/01628/01 - 17-18, Bath Road, Cowes, PO31	Cowes
3.	TCP/00921/H P/01174/01 - land rear of Rawlings, 30, Sun Hill, Cowes, PO31	Cowes
4.	TCP/00921/J P/01175/01 - Rawlings Hotel, 30 Sun Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317HY	Cowes
5.	TCP/12869/E P/01176/01 - Rawlings Hotel, 30 Sun Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317HY	Cowes
6.	TCP/02817/N P/01953/01 - 37 Pyle Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301XB	Newport
7.	TCP/04606/A P/00542/01 - land between Glenholme and The Halliards, New Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33	Wootton
8.	TCP/21760/S P/01905/01 -BAE Systems (Defence Systems) Ltd, Newport Road, Cowes, PO31	Northwood

LIST OF PART III APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 18 DECEMBER 2001

9.	TCPL/01903/P P/01331/01 - land rear of 60 Union Street, fronting, Church Lane, Ryde, PO33	Ryde
10.	LBC/01903/R P/01332/01 - land rear of 60 Union Street, fronting, Church Lane, Ryde, PO33	Ryde
11.	TCP/02012/R P/01828/01 - land adjacent 55 Clarence Road/ corner of, Mountfield Road, Wroxall, Ventnor, PO38	Wroxall
12.	TCP/02080/E P/01730/01 - land adjacent 44, Worsley Road, Cowes, PO31	Gurnard
13.	TCP/02796/B P/01854/01 - land adjacent Netherby, Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth, PO41	Shalfleet
14.	TCP/04530/M P/01942/01 - Promenade Flats, Afton Down, Freshwater, PO40	Freshwater
15.	TCPL/05528/K P/01236/01 - 9, St. Thomas Square, Newport, PO301SN	Newport
16.	LBC/05528/L P/01237/01 - 9, St. Thomas Square, Newport, PO301SN	Newport
17.	TCP/06689/K P/01712/01 - Roadside Inn and Upton View, Nettlestone Green, Seaview, PO34	Seaview
18.	TCP/07310/J P/01875/01 - land rear of Burntwood and 115, Howgate Road, Bembridge, PO35	Bembridge
19.	TCPL/10923/B P/01008/01 - Priors Cottage, Main Road, Brighstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304AH	Brighstone
20.	LBC/10923/C P/01095/01 - Priors Cottage, Main Road, Brighstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304AH	Brighstone
21.	TCP/13163/N P/01756/01 - Plots 1 and 2, off, Peacock Close, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin
22.	TCP/13787/B P/01507/01 - Regency Antiques, 64 Regent Street, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO377AE	Shanklin
23.	TCP/14571/G P/01862/01 - land adjacent 1 Oak Terrace, Moons Hill, Totland Bay, PO39	Totland
24.	TCP/15763/K P/01674/01 - land at, Josephs Way, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin
25.	TCP/17212/A P/01326/01 - land adjacent 3, Noke Common, Newport, PO30	Newport
26.	TCP/17246/C P/00844/01 - Brig O Lea, Lower Road, Adgestone, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360HL	Brading
27.	TCP/20498/B P/01082/00 - rear of Sandown Garage, Avenue Road, Sandown, PO36	Sandown
28.	TCP/20683/D P/01594/01 - Highwood Lane Sports Ground, Highwood Lane, Rookley, Ventnor, PO38	Rookley
29.	TCP/21018/C P/01079/00 - Unit 2 former depot, Victoria Grove, East Cowes, PO32	East Cowes
30.	TCP/21144/C P/00972/01 - eastern edge of Brightstone Forest and north of Worsley Trail, Limerstone Down, Brighstone, Newport	Brighstone
31.	TCP/21627/C P/00189/01 - site adjacent 139, Pallance Road, Cowes, PO31	Northwood
32.	TCP/21755/A P/01694/01 - land adjacent Bowling Green, Eastern Gardens, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33	Ryde
33.	TCP/22282/A P/01581/01 - land rear of The Dolphins, Augusta Road, Ryde, PO33	Ryde
34.	TCP/22320/A P/01655/00 - Bayclose Flats, Terrace Lane, Freshwater, PO40 9QE	Freshwater
35.	TCP/23145/E P/01970/01 - land adjacent Berry Barn Farm, New Road, Brighstone, Newport, PO30	Brighstone
36.	TCP/24134/A P/01769/01 - workshop/garages off, Brook Road, Shanklin, PO37	Shanklin
37.	TCP/24383 P/01708/01 - site C, land north of Beach House, The Promenade, Totland Bay, PO39	Totland
38.	TCP/24421 P/01846/01 - land between St Johns Lodge and Green Haze, Appley Lane, Ryde, PO33	Ryde
39.	PNP/24441 P/01921/01 - adjacent Sticelett Copse, west of, Rew Street, Cowes, PO31	Calbourne
40.	PNP/24468 P/02018/01 - east of electricity sub station, adjacent copse, Warlands Lane, Shalfleet, Newport, PO30	Shalfleet

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 18 DECEMBER 2001

(a) TCP/9682B - Fernhill House, Fernhill WOOTTON

(b) G/23/1/U - Part OS Parcel 7600, Whiteoaks Lane PORCHFIELD

PART II

1.	TCP/00133/E P/01140/00 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Registration Date: 21/07/2000 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566 Formation of quarry access road land between Broad Lane and the B3399, Newport Road, Yarmouth, PO41

Site and Location

Application site relates to a section of land running between Broad Lane and the Calbourne to Freshwater Road (B3399). The land is slightly undulating crossing an agricultural field with open land to the west and two residential properties to the east (Prospect Cottage and The Quarries). Immediately to the north on the opposite side of Broad Lane is Prospect Quarry. To the south of the Freshwater Road land rises gradually to Wellow Down and Tapnell Down. The Hamstead Trail which is aligned in a north/south direction runs alongside the eastern side of Prospect Cottage and The Quarries before crossing the Freshwater Road. The Trail crosses the bridle way running east/west at the foot of the down before rising up the northern slope and joining with the Tennyson Trail.

Relevant History

There is no planning history relating to the application site itself but for Members' information, Prospect Quarry is a site with a planning history relating to mineral extraction going back to 1950. Under the Environmental Act 1995 Review of Mineral Planning Permissions Prospect Quarry has been accepted as an active site and is not abandoned.

Details of Application

Full planning permission sought to construct a quarry access road 5 metres wide and approximately 480 metres in length running between Broad Lane and the Newport Road. The alignment of the new roadway gives it a gentle curve deflected eastward at a maximum of 45 metres which brings the roadway at its closest some 13 metres away from the existing fence line that runs north/south between the two roads. This point also corresponds with the closest proximity of the road to the buildings at The Quarries which are some 75-80 metres away whilst the distance from Prospect Cottage is approximately 80 metres.

Cross-section plans show a 2.5 metre verge on each side of the new roadway. On the western side the verge is open with a one metre fence beyond, whilst on the eastern side the verge is occupied by an earth bund with a new hedge line and fence on the outer edge.

A planning statement has been submitted with the application and this is copied and attached to this report for Members' information.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The site lies outside the development envelope within an area of open countryside. The following Unitary Development Plan policies apply.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Envelopes

C1 - Landscape Character

TR7 - Highway considerations for New Development

TR8 - The Environmental Impact of New Infrastructure Schemes

Representations

Shalfleet Parish Council - no objection but would like to make following observations.

Eight points raised on what are considered to be errors in completing the form with the following three points raised on the specifics of the application itself.

Hope for a 1.5 metre hedge within three years as there is no indication of initial height. Would also suggest initially 0.6 metres and also for more evergreens as only the 10% holly would have leaves in winter to trap dust and offer a sound insulation. Suggest beech, evergreen oak, both of which can do well on limestone.

Request a dark aggregate and topping to obscure road from view on Brook/Compton Down and B3399. Also a dust inhibiter needed in top dressing to prevent windblown nuisance at Prospect Cottage, The Quarries and Wellow.

No mention is made of any traffic crossing control at Broad Lane or control of mud from heavy vehicles being left on the road at this exit.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions.

Archaeological Officer has no comments to make.

Environmental Health Officer to be reported.

AONB Officer (summarised)

Site very open and bland and would benefit from being broken up. Feel proposed width of access track excessive if passing places are to be constructed, consider a surface width of 3 to 4 metres would be adequate and in fact the haulage track at Blackwater Quarry is just over 3 metres wide.

Consider that to be in keeping with other tracks in vicinity and to screen as much as possible a double hedge would be preferable and this would also assist in keeping dust down to a minimum.

Proposed mix of species for hedge not representative of those in area.

Proposal will not result in any loss of hedgerows as at present there is post and wire fencing on both road frontages.

If new hedge planted, suggest its composition reflects other hedges in vicinity so they will have similar appearance.

Extra sections are planted to link it to the existing hedge along be B3401 and to the garden hedge around The Quarries to enable use by small mammals.

With regard to traffic signs, would ask for careful consideration be given to their size and position as the site is highly visibility from the AONB.

Two letters of objection received from the nearest residential properties making the following points.

Question statement that new roadway will improve amenities of Prospect Cottage by taking quarry traffic further away. Quarry not being worked at present and not extensively used for at least 30 to 35 years as mineral resource depleted in 1956.

Believe twice as much dust and noise will be created as a result of using new roadway.

Prevailing wind comes from southwest and noise and dust especially in dry weather will horrendous.

Proposed construction with stone topped with aggregate will exacerbate problems.

Proposed hedge will take considerable number of years to mature and be effective.

Concerned that once built, no maintenance will occur and road condition would deteriorate.

Proposal will affect our visual amenities.

Unclear how frequently the road will be used as there are no numbers relating to frequency, vehicle numbers per hour, per day or per week. Unaware of any demand for material at present.

Concerned if scheme requires lighting.

Concerned over lack of information relating to restricting use to the company. There are no indications of signs, gates/barriers to stop unwanted use.

Would provide easier access to the rear of properties creating a security hazard.

Proposed junction point with B3399 is on brow of a hill. This is a dangerous and fast road. Believe no visibility would exist and request Highway consider the matter fully.

New roads should be both environmentally friendly and of significant use to community but this road meets neither requirement.

Money should be spent on upgrading Broad Lane from its junction with B3399 down to quarry access.

No reference to existing access off Broad Lane to quarry and assume this will continue to be used.

If approved, will road be covered by conditions relating to its restoration, aftercare and after use and clause relating to cessation of quarry operations.

Road would run within 40 metres of southwest boundary of The Quarries.

Will create eyesore in wider landscape especially when viewed from the south.

Evaluation

The determining factors with regard to this application are firstly, whether the landscape impacts of the construction of the roadway are considered acceptable, secondly, whether the nature of the roadway will affect the privacy or amenity of the nearby residential properties and thirdly, issues relating to highway safety.

With regard to the first point on landscape impact, I have considered the creation of the new roadway within the wider landscape which includes viewing it from the rising downs to the south. In that context, I do not consider that the new roadway would appear any markedly different from a number of farm tracks that can be seen in the general vicinity. The proposal to introduce a hedge provided this is planted with appropriate species would also add to the roadway settling into the surrounding landscape. If the application is supported, I would also recommend a condition tying the use of the roadway to the operations of the adjoining quarry ensuring that should that use cease, then the roadway is removed and the ground reinstated.

Concerning the second point on the potential impact of the roadway on the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties, I believe that any potential harm would result from the use of the roadway by virtue of noise and dust that may be generated by vehicle traffic. The nearest two residential properties are Prospect Cottage and The Quarries. Both of these properties lie to the east with a distance between the roadway and Prospect Cottage boundary being 75 metres and the distance to the boundary to The Quarries from the roadway being 65 metres. In addition, the residential property of The Quarries lies beyond another building. In contrast to The Quarries, where the boundary to the field is planted, the hedgerow immediately at the back of Prospect Cottage appears to have been specifically trimmed to enable views out of that property. I have considered the matter carefully and believe that subject to appropriate conditions relating to the hours of operation, the nature of the use and conditions relating to the nature of the construction of the roadway and its subsequent maintenance, then its use should not cause any detrimental harm to the amenities of the nearby residential properties. The final comments of the Environmental Health Officer are awaited.

Regarding the issue over highway safety, whilst the Highway Engineer has noted that the visibility splay of 4.5 x 90 metres is not up to the full specification for a road of this speed he has nevertheless acknowledged that the proposal is an improvement on the use of the Broad Lane junction. Accordingly, he suggests conditions.

Reason For Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the evaluation section of this report, it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions, this application can be supported and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to final receipt of the view of the Environmental Health Officer).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The quarry access road hereby approved shall only be used by traffic coming to or going from Prospect Quarry. Reason: To ensure that the roadway is only used by vehicles associated with the use of the quarry and it does not become a general public roadway.
3	The quarry access road shall only be used during the hours of 0700 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0700 and 1330 on Saturdays and at no time during Sundays or public holidays without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residential properties and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the quarry access road hereby approved is commenced, details of the nature and locations of gates to ensure the closure of the roadway outside the operating hours referred to in condition 3 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall then be implemented before the roadway is first brought into use and retained throughout the life of the facility. Reason: To ensure that the roadway is only used by vehicles associated with the use of the quarry and it does not become a general public roadway.
5	At the cessation of the operations at Prospect Quarry or 21 February 2043 at the latest, the quarry road herby approved shall be dug up and removed, the gate removed and the access points onto both roads closed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority unless some other timescale has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The roadway is only intended to serve the mineral operations at Prospect Quarry and the condition has been imposed to reflect these circumstances and to protect the long-term visual character of the locality in accordance with Policy C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Visibility splays of x = 4.5m and y = 90m dimensions onto the B3399 and Broad Lane shall be constructed prior to the access road being brought into use and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The surfacing of the site access shown on plan 599/PL2 shall be maintained in a good state of repair and kept clean and free of mud and other debris at all times until completion of site restoration and aftercare. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Drainage of access - L14
9	The first 25 metres at both ends of the access road from its junctions with the B3399 and Broad Lane shall be constructed to a minimum carriageway width of 6 metres and provided with a sealed surface in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Construction and use of the proposed access road shall not commence until authorised traffic warning signs have been erected in B3399 to the east and west of the junction and such signs shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and M2 (Defined Mineral Working) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. TCP/00853/L P/01628/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 04/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598

Demolition of buildings; 4 storey building to form office accommodation on ground floor with a total of 8 flats on the 1st, 2nd & 3rd floors 17-18, Bath Road, Cowes, PO31

Site and Location

Application relates to irregular shaped site being the curtilage of the Cowes Combined Club buildings located on the western side of Bath Road virtually opposite the junction of that road with The Parade. Immediately to the north is the substantial building Osborne Court which is some eight to nine storeys in height whilst abutting to the south is a long established building No. 16 being two storeys in height having retail use on the ground floor with a first floor flat. This building is finished in facing brick with a semi-castellated parapet finish. The site has a 24 metre frontage onto Bath Road with a depth which varies from a maximum of 32 metres to minimum of 26 metres. Abutting to the rear (west) is a compound of garages serving the adjoining Osborne Court and which is accessed off The Grove, an unadopted gravel road which runs between Bars Hill and Castle Hill. The site rises to the west with the rise being steeper towards the rear there being a difference of approximately 5 metres between the level of the rear boundary the level of Bath Road.

Relevant History

None in respect of redevelopment of the site, however, in December 1990 consent granted for a relatively small first floor extension to form kitchen area.

In terms of the adjoining building No. 16 Bath Road, consent was granted in January 1994 for the conversion of a first floor flat to an additional shop area and more significantly an extension to form second floor providing a self-contained flat. The second floor was designed to be finished with a traditional pitched roof. This consent has not been implemented and has expired.

Details of Application

Detailed consent is sought for a three/four storey block providing seven 2-bedroom and one 3-bedroom flats over a total of approximately 280 square metres (3,000 square feet) of office space to be occupied by the Cowes Combined Clubs as a new Regatta Organisation Centre. Block to be constructed in a painted rendered finish including walls and string courses under slated hipped roofs. External elevation to Bath Road includes provision for common balcony at first floor level serving three flats, three individual balconies at second floor level and two individual balconies at third floor level behind a parapet. Finished balconies to be in the form of wrought iron balustrading with the second floor balconies being in the form of lead covered canopies with welted seams, third floor balcony to be in the form of white painted handrail with glass infill over pre-cast concrete coping.

Block is split level in nature reflecting the gradient of the site with the ground floor element of the proposal dug in towards the rear. That block itself virtually covers the whole of the front area of the site being located within one metre off the southern boundary within which is a footpath to a side entrance providing access to flats 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with a further 1.4 metre wide access at the northern end of the block recessed and providing access to flats 6, 7 and 8 via common staircases. Four storey element forms the main part of the proposal and is in the southern half of the site with the three storey element occupying a lesser area in the northern area of the site. The roof area to the three storey element contains within its space creating the three bedroom

flat at third floor. That block has an overall width of 23 metres by a maximum depth of approximately 19 metres with the remaining rear area of the curtilage providing common amenity area to the proposed development.

Members are advised that this application provides no on-site parking.

Application has been accompanied by a design statement which is attached to this report as an appendix. Also, the application has been considered by a Structural Engineer and a copy of his recommendations has been provided. His conclusions and recommendations are summarised:

Initial appraisal indicates site and ground conditions to be stable. Engineer makes reference to detailed site investigation being carried out at the Building Regulations stage in order to confirm exact strata conditions and therefore suitable foundation designs.

Engineer recommends at least two boreholes be sunk with any soil samples being subject of a geotechnical specialist report. Engineer suggests that it is highly likely that augered piles would be suitable for this site. Such piled foundations would not only avoid excessive vibration to nearby structures but also assist in keeping excavations to the minimum particularly the construction to the retaining wall to the rear of the office accommodation. Reference is also made to the use of contiguous reinforced augured piles which could be used to support the existing bank or the upper ground level. Such piles would ensure protection of adjacent structures.

He summarises that it is considered that the proposed redevelopment can be carried out provided care is taken throughout all stages from the initial design stage to obtaining full Building Regulation approval particularly of the foundations prior to any construction. Furthermore, it is highly recommended that all works are properly supervised to a satisfactory conclusion.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing - March 2000, PPG3 - Transport, PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment.

PPG3 - Housing March 2000 emphasises the following:

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport to jobs, education, health facilities, shopping etc.

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities (30 to 50 dph minimum quoted) which could be increased in town centres with good public transport.

Face needs of people before ease of traffic movement in designing layout of residential development.

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between housing, jobs etc by reducing the level of parking.

Promote good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive high quality living environments in which people will choose to live.

Promotion of developments which combine a mix of land uses including housing on appropriate development sites.

PPG13 - Transport - March 2001 emphasises the following.

Promotion of more sustainable choices for both people and for moving freight.

Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

Reduce the need to travel especially by car.

In relation the current application, the document makes specific reference to:

"Use parking policies alongside other planning and transport measures to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys" and;

"Accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas planning for increase intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling."

PPG15 identifies Government policies in respect of identification and protection of conservation areas and explains the role played by the planning system in such protection.

In terms of Development Control reference is made to Section 72 of the relevant Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

The document also makes reference to general advice on design considerations which are relevant to the exercise of planning controls.

Members' attention is also drawn to two other documents produced by DTLR, one being Design - Urban Design in the Planning System - Towards Better Practice and By Design - Better Places to Live - a Companion Guide to PPG3. Both documents emphasise the importance of encouraging quality urban design by expressing its main objectives through the various aspects of the built form.

The site is situated within the development envelope as defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and more significantly is situated within the Cowes Conservation Area. The front half of the site is with a tidal flood plain as defined by the Environment Agency in their 1999 flood plain map.

Planning policies which apply are listed below.

Policy G4 - General locational criteria for development

Policy D1 - Standards of Design

Policy D2 - Standards for Development within the site

Policy H5 - Infill Development

Policy B6 - Protection and Enhancement of conservation areas

Policy B7 - Demolition of non-listed buildings in conservation areas

Policy TR3 - Locating development to minimise the need to travel

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines

Policy U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision

The site is within Zone 1 in respect of the parking guideline policies. Members are reminded that parking zones are based on existing transport patterns as well as geographical and land use factors. There are a total of four zones with this application being situated within Zone 1 which comprises the town centre core areas of Cowes and within which there should be no onsite parking either operational or non-operational. Typical characteristics of Zone 1 town centre areas are as follows:

Areas of existing or potential pedestrianisation, where development would likely to give rise to additional vehicular movements should not be permitted.

Few existing off-street parking or servicing areas.

Access to premises generally controlled by individual permits or statutory time restrictions.

Narrow streets and/or conservation areas.

Within easy walking distance of good (at least half hourly daytime) bus services.

Reference is made to the Cowes & Gurnard Coastal Slopes Stability Study and in particular to the Planning Guidance Map. In respect of the current application this is indicated to be within an area likely to be suitable for development in accordance with the Development Plan provided the developer takes appropriate mitigation and stabilisation measures. In terms of Development Control Study suggests that a Full Stability Report would normally be required prepared by a competent person.

Representations

Cowes Town Council essentially raise no objection but initially stated that they were unhappy with the design submitted and believe that the Architect should be asked to reconsider in view of it being in a conservation area.

A further comment was received from the Town Council as follows.

They are unhappy at the elevation at ground floor level and would ask the Architects' Panel to give their consideration.

Highway Engineer recognised zero parking provision is appropriate given site location in Zone 1 but required conditions requiring cycle parking.

County Archaeologist comments as follows.

"�.. proposal includes the demolition of two vernacular buildings of local interest within Cowes Conservation Area. Both buildings are timber weather boarded structures and are the only examples of this building style in Cowes Town Centre.

I understand that the planning application does not discuss the possible merits of these buildings or mention the fact that they within a conservation area. As you will know the English Heritage Discussion Document Sustaining The Historic Environment 1977 emphasises that it has more ordinary features in the historic environment that create local distinctiveness but that the features which shape local environments and create the distinctive culture and meaning of a particular are all too easy overlooked in our concentration on the nationally special sites.

In view of the contribution that these buildings make to distinctive local character of Cowes, I feel that a conservation appraisal should be undertaken before permission to demolish them is considered. The appraisal should attempt to determine the age of these buildings and whether they represent a significant local building tradition. In the event, the planning permission is granted for demolition, a full record of the building should be made in accordance with PPG15."

The Council's Conservation Officer has commented as follows in respect of the demolition of the buildings.

"To Bath Road there are two distinct buildings both similar in height and footprint with a narrow passage between and with a similar passage to the left-hand side of the site. It is obvious that both buildings were designed to be similar, the position of the gutter line, the pitch of the roof and the footprint of the original buildings are virtually the same, it is however, obvious that the building to the right-hand site has had major changes (in the way of extensions) to the structure. Indeed, it would appear that it has virtually been rebuilt. What is present is a timber clad building with virtually all the original features removed.

The building to the left has two projecting square bays in poor construction structurally with some of the original timber cladding still evident but again in poor condition. The two bays are typical of the style of window of the early to mid 1800's of which many examples still exist throughout the town. The roof is clad in clay tiles and these appear to be the original although the roof has been re-roofed in the recent past given the lack of breakages and levels.

The rear of the properties was inspected from the road behind and there are numerous extensions and alterations little of the original remains.

Given that 50% of the building has been completely re-clad and the number of extensions and alterations, I would estimate that less than 40% of the original building remains. This being the case, I could not support a recommendation for listing where the criterion is to protect building, where the greater proportion of the original buildings remain intact. Also (PPG15) 'after about 1840, because of the increased number of buildings erected and that the much larger numbers that have survived greater selection is necessary to identify the best examples of particular building types and only buildings of defined quality and character and listed.'"

The Architects' Panel commented on the proposal as follows.

With regard to the verandah roofs on the second floor, the Panel were of the opinion that these should be taken up to the underside of the balcony cope, since in their present configuration, they would barely be seen and did not contribute to the architectural detailing.

With regard to the ground floor entrance doors, the Panel noted from the plan that these were recessed but recommended that this element be more forcibly articulated given that it was a main entry into a very large office space suggesting that the doors be doubled in width with a more vertical emphasis.

Environment Agency recommends condition that foul drainage from this proposed development shall be to the mains foul sewer.

Agency also state the following.

"For your information, the predicted 0.5% probability extreme sea level in the year 2060 for this area is 3.2 metres above Ordnance Datum Newlyn. This makes an allowance of 6mm/year for Global warming/land sinking but does not take into consideration wave heights which should be allowed for when setting floor levels.

The applicants should be made aware that the development even if above the flood level is within the flood plain they may have problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flood events.

Application has been subject of a total of 16 letters of objection, six of which come from residents who live in the immediate locality (one each from residents of Bath Road and Osborne Court, two each from residents of The Parade and The Grove) eight of which are from residents of Cowes, one from resident of Wootton Bridge and one from the Isle of Wight Society. The points of objection are summarised as follows.

Objectors consider buildings have sufficient merit to be worthy of listing if only for their historical merit or they consider they make a valuable contribution to the Conservation Area.

Concerns that the proposal provides zero parking and that a development of this density will therefore exacerbate the on-street parking problems in the area with particular reference to parking on The Parade.

Concerned that construction traffic and the general construction works will result in the closure of Bath Road and existing retailers in the area. They are also concerned about the inadequacies of the road system in the area to accommodate construction traffic.

Particular concern expressed regarding the excessive height and over-dominance of the proposed building relative to a narrow street scene and in relation to the relatively low scale properties to the south in Bath Road. Such a height and mass of property will adversely affect the Conservation Area and the architecture of the building will further contribute to the jumble of architecture along The Parade.

A number of objectors consider that if Cowes Combined Club could easily relocate to other buildings more better located to the marina without taking this drastic step to demolish buildings of what objectors consider to be some merit.

Construction works could undermine other buildings in the area.

Reference has been made to the height of the building obscuring vision of an existing tree to the rear. It is assumed that the writer is referring to an existing conifer with The Grove which is a preserved tree and can be seen from The Parade.

Evaluation

Issues to consider in respect of this proposal are as follows:

Principle - Impact on the Conservation Area

Mix of Uses - Office/Residential

Height, Mass and Architecture - Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Area

Zero Parking Provision

Other Material Considerations

Principle - Impact on the Conservation Area

First material consideration in respect of an application which involves demolition, is the importance in visual terms of the existing buildings the visual amenities of the Conservation Area. These buildings are long established, having some character and are prominently located although somewhat dwarfed by the adjoining Osborne Court. Their boarded finish makes them unique in relation to surrounding development although it is fair to state that there is a wide variety of different architectural finishes and mass and scale of buildings in the area all of which either contribute to or detract from the visual amenities. Important factor in this case is that the buildings are not Listed and the Council's Conservation Officer's comments in respect of their "listability" are self-explanatory with the most important consideration being that the buildings must retain a high percentage of their original character to be defined as having sufficient quality to be Listed. I can do no more than accept the advice being given by the Council's Conservation Officer with regard to Listing these buildings.

Having discounted the route towards Listing the buildings the next consideration is whether or not their contribution to the Conservation Area is of a sufficient level to resist their loss on the grounds that they provide a valuable amenity to the Conservation Area. The fact that they are of insufficient quality to be Listed would to a great degree suggest that a case for their retention on the grounds of them providing a vital contribution to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area would be more difficult to sustain. An argument to resist their loss may be stronger if the quality of the surrounding buildings had been that much greater but apart from the Royal London Yacht Club the immediate buildings in the vicinity are not of particularly high architectural quality. Also these buildings are totally dominated by Osborne Court and to a lesser degree the Trinity Theatre. Incidentally, neither of these large buildings are Listed. Therefore, whilst acknowledging the two existing buildings do have some architectural character in the context of the area I do not consider they are of sufficient quality to warrant a sustainable case to refuse this application on the grounds of the loss of the buildings.

Mix of Uses

Given the above assessment the next consideration must be whether or not the type of replacement development is an acceptable form in terms of current policies with particular reference to the mix of uses i.e. office ground floor, residential upper floors. Members attention is drawn to the policies of PPG3 which encourages where appropriate a combination of uses particularly within town centres and urban areas. This proposal fully conforms with National policies to encourage residential occupation within the inner urban areas in the interests of contributing to vitality and viability of town centres. I therefore consider that the mix particularly that of office and residential is wholly appropriate to this site and will be an efficient re-use of the site which formerly only provided relatively modest residential accommodation with office, to one which provides an increase in office accommodation and 7 additional flats. Obviously this type of proposal should not be at the expense of cramped and over-dominant development and therefore this needs to be considered carefully given site is in a Conservation Area.

Height, Mass and Architecture - Preservation and Enhancement

Members will note that this proposal in providing the additional accommodation results in an overall building which is higher and more massive than the existing modest scale buildings on the site. Members will need to consider carefully whether such an increase is an acceptable solution although obviously at this higher mass and scale the building would still be dominated by Osborne Court to the north.

Members will be aware that the important consideration is the need to ensure protection or enhancement of the Conservation Area and whether this scheme has achieved that aim.

Obviously the most important factor from this point of view is the architecture of the building and whether or not it does justice to the Conservation Area status and will contribute to the visual amenities of that area. The Architects Panel in this case has, apart from some minor adjustment, supported the proposal. The applicants have now addressed for the most part the suggestions made by the Architects Panel, through the submission of revised plans.

In architectural terms it is noted that from the contents of the Architect's design statement that the nearby Royal London Yacht Club, which has influenced some aspects of the design, is a building of some architectural character although it is not Listed.

In terms of materials the Architect has noted that the painted render is one of two predominant material finishes in the area with particular reference to the rendered finish of Osborne Court. In this case the Architect has chosen painted render to provide "a suitable background against which to view the shape and form of the projecting balconies and balustrading at first floor level whilst making reference to the adjacent Osborne Court". It is clear from the contents of the Design Statement that justification for the finished scheme as submitted has been carefully considered. Whilst I note the concerns of local residents regarding this particular issue Members will be aware that it is subjective and the advice that I have received on this issue particularly in respect of the Architects Panel leads me to the view that the proposal is acceptable and satisfies the test of protection and enhancement.

In referring to the design statement above applicants have taken note of the Panels' comments and confirm that the canopies over the balconies have been raised to give a fuller profile in accordance with those comments. With regard to the comment relating to the ground floor elevation this has been modified to omit the rounded corners to the windows and allow a more formal sub-division of the glazed areas. Architect states that the design of these areas is a compromise between the need for shop frontage "for the display of results etc." and the ventilation needs of the office areas behind. It is envisaged that these glazing needs will be met by using inward opening tilt-and-turn windows.

Architect makes the following statement with regard to the ground floor design as follows:

"The entrance is deliberately low-key, however, to introduce articulation and interest at this level as suggested by the Panel, small permanent canopies have been indicated over each of the window openings in the manner of individual shop fronts. This will provide shape and colour at street level and help give "sea-side" atmosphere.

Zero Parking Provision

I fully recognise the objections made on grounds of lack of parking, and the difficulties of applying sustainable transport policies UDP & PPG13 which reduce parking provision for developments, dependant upon their location. The important factor with this site is that it is within Zone 1 which has been described above and any development within this zones is expected not to provide any parking on the following grounds in this case:

Any provision of parking off Bath Road would adversely affect the type and design of the development which needs to be of a high quality compatible with its location within the Conservation Area.

Site's location relative to the town centre and therefore access to public transport Bath Road is a narrow street which is traffic calmed and contributes to the visual amenity of the Conservation Area.

Site has convenient linkages to shopping and traffic quiet areas in Cowes town centre.

Site is located in close proximity to the historic core area of Cowes.

All the above leads me to support the view of the Highway Engineer that provision of on-site car parking in relation to this development is inappropriate although I accept that the introduction of flats may generate additional traffic over and above the existing use which incidentally has also never provided parking provision on site.

Occupiers will be fully aware that they will be buying into a development which does not have parking provision on site and will be within an area where there is controlled public parking which may or may not be available. I appreciate that this is a difficult policy to promote, however, it is not uncommon for in-town flatted developments to either not provide parking or very limited parking and whilst accepting such a situation may limit in some circumstances the type of potential occupier, my experience is that such flats, especially in this location will be popular and the issue of there being no parking provision clearly is accepted.

Other Material Considerations

Members will note that the application has been accompanied by a Structural Engineer's report which, although generally satisfactory, was not, following consultation with the Building Control Department, of sufficient detail entirely to address the recommendation contained in the Cowes/Gurnard Study. Therefore additional information has been received clarifying the method statement for this development with particular reference to ensuring no adverse affect on adjoining sites or nearby buildings. This method statement has been vetted by the Council's Building Control Department who are of the view that it is satisfactory. In summary the statement covers a number of points as follows:

Need to ensure a full site investigation and Slope Stability analysis is carried out with a minimum of two-bore hole sunk to a minimum 15 metres in depth beneath the surface to take appropriate undisturbed soil samples and monitor ground water level. Following such an investigation the determination of a factor of safety will be required with that figure being influenced by laboratory testing of sample bores.

Foundations and sub-structure to be designed in accordance with Building Regulations with such a design being strictly in accordance with the Site Investigation report with particular reference to sequence of operations to ensure continuous stability of the site and adjoining land and buildings.

Reference made to developer taking Public Liability insurance.

Prior to demolition of the existing buildings provision shall be made for temporary supports or load to the ground or the site and temporary or permanent support to adjacent structures to ensure continuous stability.

Implementation of the Party Wall Act.

Upon receipt of Building Regulation Approval proceed to demolition stage and prepare site in accordance with design.

Construction of new foundations expeditely in accordance with the design.

Whole of foundation construction works to be supervised by an appropriate competent person.

Given the above additional information I am of the view that the ground stability issue has been addressed in this case and if Members are mindful to approve the application I suggest an appropriate condition.

In terms of drainage applicants confirm that the existing drainage in the area is capable of accepting the drainage from this site. Obviously this would be a matter that could be covered by condition but I have received no adverse comments from Southern Water on this issue.

Members will be aware that Planning Authorities are advised that they cannot condition routes etc. of construction traffic and how that is to be managed. Therefore, in view of the concerns being expressed I suggest that an advisory letter could be sent out in respect of this proposal that site management be given careful consideration to ensure minimum disturbance to local businesses in respect of construction and delivery vehicles to the site. Also, this type of site may cause a problem in respect of the parking of operatives' vehicles during the construction works, a situation which is obviously difficult to control although applicants could be advised to give this matter careful consideration.

Conclusion

Given the above assessment and whilst fully acknowledging the concerns being expressed by local residents I am of the view that the scheme now proposed is acceptable and will satisfy the various caveats within the Policies with particular reference to protection and enhancement of the conservation area with the backing of the Architects Panel being of some importance.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable for reasons outlined in the Conclusion and therefore I recommend accordingly.

1. Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be. painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	All construction works with particular reference to foundations shall be carried out in accordance with the method statement contained within the letter dated 29 November 2001 from Messrs Tarry Willis Associates (items 1-8 inclusive) with the full site investigation slope stability analysis referred to in item 1 being submitted for approval prior to any other work commencing. Reason: In the interests of ensuring any construction work will not adversely affect adjoining sites on the above building in compliance with Policy G7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Foul drainage from this proposed development shall be to the mains foul sewer only. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
6	All building materials, rubble, timber etc from the demolition works shall be removed from the site within one month from the start of the demolition works. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	All materials excavated as a result of the general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plan. The materials shall be removed from the site within an agreed timetable. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential and commercial properties in particular to comply with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until the submission of a proposal setting out proportions to be taken during the progress of works to guard against deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such proposal shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances. The proposal shall be in place during the full extent of the construction works. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	During the demolition and construction works hereby approved, no works shall take place on site before 0730 hours or after 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and before 0730 hours and after 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on recognised Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to commencement of work, full details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in respect of foul and surface water drainage proposals with such details including calculations where necessary. All such foul drainage and surface water drainage proposals shall be carried out in accordance with those agreed details. Reason: In compliance with Policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The building shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the plan attached for eight bicycles to be parked and such provision shall be retained. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That a letter be sent to the applicants requesting they give careful consideration to the route of and management of construction traffic to ensure as far as possible minimum disturbance to local residents and businesses. Similar consideration be given to the parking of operative's vehicles during construction works.

3.	TCP/00921/H P/01174/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 02/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Detached house land rear of Rawlings, 30, Sun Hill, Cowes, PO31

See joint reports on application nos. TCP/12869E/P1176/01 (item no. 5) and TCP/921J/P1175/01 (item no. 4).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed house, by reason of its scale, height and design, would be an inappropriate development in the Cowes Conservation Area failing to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policy B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposed house, by reason of its scale, height, design and location in close proximity to the listed building 32 Sun Hill would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the listed building to the north and would be contrary to Policy B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The proposed house, by reason of its position, size and design, would be intrusive, out of scale and character with the neighbouring dwelling to the south, resulting in an overlooking and over-dominant effect contrary to Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The position of the proposed house would be likely to result in the loss of an existing ash tree within a Conservation Area which would be unacceptable because of its importance in the local landscape.

5	The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of indicating changes in ground levels or adjoining properties so that the Local Planning Authority is unable to fully consider the effects of the proposal on these adjoining properties.

4.	TCP/00921/J P/01175/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East Registration Date: 02/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Change of use from hotel bedroom annexe to private dwelling house Rawlings Hotel, 30 Sun Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317HY

See joint reports on application nos. TCP/12869E/P1176/01 (item no. 5) and TCP/921H/P1174/01 (item no. 3).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The lower half of the first floor west facing bedroom and kitchen window shall be fixed obscure glazed which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	This consent shall limit the use of the southern section of 32 Sun Hill as a single dwelling house and for no other purpose without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5.	TCP/12869/E P/01176/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Registration Date: 02/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Conversion from hotel into 2 houses Rawlings Hotel, 30 Sun Hill, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO317HY

This report also relates to application nos. TCP/921H/P1174/01 (Item No. 3) and TCP/921J/P1175/01 (Item No. 4).

Site and Location

All three applications relate to the Rawlings Hotel (No. 30 Sun Hill) situated on the southern side of Sun Hill close to its junction with Market Hill and Union Road to the west. The curtilage of Rawlings Hotel includes land to the rear of that property and also the rear third of property 32 Sun Hill which abuts to the west and is a Grade II Listed Building formerly used as office accommodation.

Rawlings is two storeys in height providing five letting en-suite bedrooms whilst the annexe within the adjacent listed building provides six en-suite letting bedrooms resulting in a total of eleven letting bedrooms. The Rawlings Hotel is surrounded by long-established residential properties on the Sun Hill frontage. In terms of Terminus Road abutting the rear boundary, there are residential properties, again which abuts this boundary being Nos. 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 Terminus Road. The remaining part of the boundary is abutted by St Thomas Church.

Relevant History

In March 1990, a proposed extension to enclose an existing swimming pool and provide owner's accommodation at first floor level was refused on grounds that proposal would be prejudicial to the amenities and environment of the locality and adjacent property in particular and would be out of keeping with the design of the building which is within a Conservation Area.

The adjoining listed building (Foresters Hall) this was granted planning and listed building consent in January 1996 for conversion to two dwellings.

In November 1996 retrospective consent was granted for the retention of additional accommodation for the Rawlings Hotel in respect of the rear part of the Foresters Hall.

In July 1999 a further planning and listed building consent granted for alterations and conversion of the front two thirds of the adjoining Foresters Hall to form three living units. This consent has been implemented. The rear half of the adjoining building is being used as annexed accommodation to the main Rawlings Hotel in the form of six en-suite letting bedrooms as approved in 1996.

Details of Applications

TCP/921H

This is a detailed application for a detached two storey, three bedroom house to be constructed in facing brick under slated hipped roof. The dwelling is "L" shaped having a proposed location between the rear boundary of the adjoining Foresters Hall and the rear elevation of that building. The proposed dwelling is indicated to be approximately 2 metres off the rear elevation of Foresters Hall which results in a minimum distance off the rear boundary of 4.7 metres to maximum distance of 7.5 metres. The height of the proposed dwelling as scaled off the drawing is 7.5 metres.

The property which abuts the rear boundary being 24/26 Terminus Road is situated a maximum of 3.2 metres to minimum 2.5 metres off that rear boundary with the nearest element being single storey. The proposed ground levels indicated on the submitted plans do not reflect the topography of the site which slopes in some cases quite steeply towards the south. The submission also indicates the ground floor plan of the proposed dwelling to be in the form of three bedrooms with the first floor providing lounge, kitchen and dining room accommodation. Proposal indicates first floor lounge window facing in a southerly direction with the remaining lounge windows and kitchen windows facing in an easterly direction.

TCP/921J

Consent is sought for change of use of the annexed hotel bedrooms to the rear of Foresters Hall to a dwelling providing six bedroom accommodation with lounge, kitchen and bathroom. Effectively, the internal layout of the building would not be changed. The result would be a total of four units within the Foresters Hall, these being in the form of two flats in the front half fronting Sun Hill, a single dwelling in the central area and this proposal for a further dwelling.

TCP/12869E

This application seeks consent to change the use of Rawlings Hotel to two houses, one providing three bedroom accommodation and the other providing four bedroom accommodation. Hotel to be split vertically with one of the houses having direct entrance off Sun Hill with the second having entrance to the rear.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

All application sites are within development envelope boundary and within the Cowes Conservation Area. The property 32 Sun Hill is a Grade II Listed Building.

National policies are covered in PPG3 - Housing - March 2000, PPG15, Planning and the Historic Environment and PPG21 - Tourism.

PPG3 - This document emphasis the need to make efficient use of urban land to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

New housing should not be viewed in isolation. Consideration of design and layout must be informed by wider context having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality.

Recognising conversions of housing, buildings formerly and other uses in upper floor space over shops can provide an important source of additional housing particularly in town centres.

PPG15 - emphasises the need for flexibility in uses of listed buildings and have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.

PPG21 - emphasises that the conversion of hotel premises to alternative uses can weaken a seaside town's ability to retain its status as a tourist destination. It emphasises the need for well defined but economically realistic Local Plan policies should be applied. It also emphasises that Authorities should not seek to use the planning system to attempt to perpetuate outdated forms of tourist activity and accommodation for which there is no longer a demand.

Local Plan policies which apply are listed below.

Policy D1 - Standards of Design.

Policy D2 - Standards for Development within the site.

Policy H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to defined settlements.

Policy B2 - Setting of Listed Buildings.

Policy B3 - Change of Use of Listed Buildings.

Policy B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

Policy T5 - Hotels outside of defined Hotel areas.

Representations

All three applications have been subject of letters of comment and objection from local residents with the main objection being to the proposed house. Objections to the individual applications are as follows.

TCP/921H - Proposed detached house

This application has been subject of individual letters of objection from neighbouring property owners to the south, Nos. 28, 30 and 32 Terminus Road, Harbour Views, 24 Terminus Road. Points raised are summarised as follows.

Houses in Terminus Road located lower than the application site with submitted plans neither showing the adjoining properties or the topography of the site. Because of the higher land on which the dwelling is to be constructed, it will over-dominant in relation to these properties in Terminus Road.

Although there is a wall to the rear of these adjoining properties, because of the topography of the site, any windows particularly first floor lounge windows will overlook those properties which adjoin to the south resulting in loss of privacy and overlooking.

Although the proposed property is set to the rear of adjoining properties, it will be visible from a number of properties and its design is to be considered inappropriate in relation to the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building. Objectors do not consider the proposal will either preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Concerns relating to ground stability and the effect any development of this type may have on the integrity of ground conditions in the surrounding area.

Position of the house in relation to an existing large ash tree would threaten the long-term retention of that tree which is highly visible from a number of properties.

The construction of a house in such close proximity to other buildings in the area will result in a cramped development constituting over-development.

Development of this type without any direct vehicular access or off-road parking will cause additional traffic hazards to road users and pedestrians with reference to disruption by construction traffic.

TCP/921J - Change of use from hotel bedroom annexe to private dwelling house

Two Sun Hill residents including adjoining property owner to the west comment and object as follows:

Resident points out that contrary to the statement within the planning application, this part of the old hall has never been used for a dwelling. Neighbouring property owner in Sun Hill is concerned that its use for a single dwelling should not involve any additional windows which may overlook the adjoining property to the west.

Concerned that access to this part of the old hall as a dwelling from the right of way which exists between Terminus Road and the rear of Rawlings Hotel will cause disturbance and concern to those property owners 24 and 26 Terminus Road and any future owners of the Rawlings Hotel.

Concerned that the level of occupation that could occur in respect of this proposed dwelling within the old hall will inevitably attract a high car ownership will cause disturbance and obstruction to traffic flow and cause risk to public.

TCP/12869E - Conversion from hotel to two houses

Two objections received, one from resident of Terminus Road and one from resident of Union Road both within above mentioned letters to the effect that:

"Cowes has few enough hotels as it is and the loss of another is surely not good for the town. One can understand the owner wishing to retire but there must be a willing buyer just waiting for an opportunity to run a successful hotel and Members Club such as Rawlings."

Also letters refer to the following:

Loss of hotel to detriment of tourist industry.

Loss of employment.

Once converted - difficult to convert back.

Create imbalance in mix of houses in area.

Houses would have no direct access to the road other than through an alleyway.

With regard to the hotel conversion, Island Tourist Industry Association has commented on behalf of the Isle of Wight Tourism and raises no objection to the application as it stands.

Comment received from development plan officer.

Rawlings Hotel, Cowes is not situated within the defined hotel area and as such is, as you correctly point out under the auspices of Policy T5 'Hotels outside of defined Hotel Areas'. Following our previous discussion and our decision to await the comments of the Isle of Wight Tourism, I am still of the opinion that approval of this planning application would be contrary to that policy.

The material considerations which may include the Isle of Wight Tourism's comments (generally that the conversion to private dwelling house would not be inappropriate) and the unusual layout and configuration of the hotel, are views that must be weighed through the development control process.

Highway Engineer raises no objection to any of the applications including the proposed house making the following comment - parking Zone 2 acknowledged with zero parking in this case being considered acceptable for it is not possible to provide parking in this situation. In terms of the other two applications, Highway Engineer raises no objection.

One qualified letter of support received from resident of Sun Hill on grounds that change of use would stop the noisy use of the swimming pool. Some concern expressed regarding window sizes and kitchen smells.

Evaluation

Members will note that these three applications if approved, would result in not only the loss of the hotel facility but create total residential use including the additional residential use of the proposed dwelling. The circumstances of this site are unique for they involve the conversion of an existing hotel building which on its own only provides five letting bedrooms, a section (rear) of a Grade II Listed Building which presently has an authorised use as a hotel annexe and the provision of an additional detached dwelling to the rear within the curtilage of the hotel premises and in very close proximity to a listed building and within a Conservation Area.

In terms of assessing the merits of these applications, these are itemised as follows.

TCP/921H - proposed detached house

Members will note that this is a detailed application seeking consent for a detached dwelling in a location which in essence will have little or no impact on surrounding streets. This apart however and not withstanding the policies within PPG3 to make best use of urban land, I am strongly of the view that this proposal is wholly inappropriate and will result in cramped development.

Overall design of the house in architectural terms is unacceptable and does not take account of the setting of the listed building or the fact that the site is within a Conservation Area.

Submitted plans fail to indicate the considerable change in ground levels or indicate adjacent properties or accurately indicate the size and crown spread of the nearby existing tree.

Because of the position of the dwelling and its arrangement in relation to adjoining properties, it will clearly result in an over-dominance and over-looking of those adjoining properties to the south adversely affecting their existing environment.

I am strongly of the view that this proposal should be refused for the above reasons.

TCP/921J - Change of use from hotel bedroom annexe to private dwelling house and TCP/12869E - Conversion of Rawlings Hotel into two dwellings

Bearing in mind that these two applications are inherently linked in terms of principle of change of use, I have combined the Evaluation as follows.

It is fair to state that this is more difficult to assess with there being conflict in policies in respect of tourism and listed buildings and the assessment has to be the level of weight which should be given to one against the other.

In terms of TCP/921J which relates to the change of use of hotel annex to a private dwelling house, Members will note this is within the rear third of a substantial Grade II listed building. On the one hand the use of this section of this listed building as an annex ensures the Rawlings Hotel is capable of providing additional tourist accommodation which is important for Cowes. Also significantly in terms of Policy T5, it means the Rawlings Hotel should be calculated as being within the auspices of Caveat C to that policy, being two lettable bedrooms over the threshold of ten. Therefore, it is not surprisingly that strict policy advice has placed significant weight on Policy T5 and therefore advises that refusal is the proper course of action for both applications.

I remind Members of the two policies. These are quoted as follows:

Policy T5 - "Outside of defined hotel areas development resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation will only be approved where:

(a) there is a change of use to another form of holiday accommodation;

(b) existing accommodation is upgraded or improved;

(c) the proposal involves a change of use of premises of less than ten lettable bedrooms."

Policy B3 - "Planning applications for the change of use of listed buildings will be approved provided that the alternative will not detrimental effect the long-term structure of the building and would preserve any historic archaeological or special architectural features it possesses."

Whilst accepting the calculation that the Rawlings Hotel falls under Caveat C, the Island Tourist Industry Association has raised no objection to either of these proposals of change of use effectively accepting the loss of the hotel use. It is accepted that there is no detailed explanation as to this acceptance of the loss. This apart however, any refusal could be difficult to sustain on appeal without the support of the Tourist Industry Association.

The listed building issue also has to be considered. Policy B3 and advice contained in PPG15 emphasize the need to be flexible in uses of listed buildings in the interest of ensuring their preservation and more significantly, their future maintenance. Whilst I am not suggesting that the use of this section of the listed building as an annex to a hotel has resulted in a deterioration of that building, it is clear that if the hotel use ceases (a matter outside planning control), an alternative use must be accepted. A refusal of these applications will not assure that the hotel remains open. I am of the view that its use as a single occupancy dwelling house is likely to result in its future maintenance and therefore ensuring its long-term survival. I am therefore of the view that greater weight should be given to Policy B3 in this instance and therefore I am of the view that the change of use of the hotel bedroom annexe and the Rawlings Hotel itself should be approved.

I would suggest relevant conditions relating to details of subdivision of garden areas and boundary treatments, along with the withdrawing of permitted development rights in respect of extensions etc to the Rawlings Hotel itself. In terms of the annex and the listed building, I would suggest appropriate conditions which in one case is a repeat of the condition requiring fixed obscure glazing to west facing windows and a condition ensuring that this area of the building will be used as a single dwelling house only and for no other purpose.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the assessments made in respect of all three applications have been carefully considered and that the relevant recommendations are appropriate in this case.

Recommendations

TCP/12869E/P1176/01 - Approval

TCP/921J/P1175/01 - Approval

TCP/921H/P1174/01 - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to the conversion of the hotel premises to two dwellings hereby approved, a plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating the subdivision of garden areas to serve the two dwellings along with an indication of boundary treatments. Any such agreed garden subdivision and boundary treatments shall be carried out prior to occupation and in accordance with the agreed scheme. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies B6 and D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes (A-E) of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Site and Location

Application relates to prominent corner site on south western corner of junction of Town Lane with Pyle Street. Site included a recently demolished premises which abutted in part the Conservative Club on the Pyle Street frontage. Site has approximately 30 metre frontage on to Town Lane with an approximate 14 metre frontage on to Pyle Street. The rear western boundary abuts in part no. 38 (Newport Conservative Club) and in part the rear service area which has access off Town Lane and services the retail premises which fronts South Street. Some boundary directly abuts the services access as previously described.

Members will recall visiting the site in connection with a recently determined application, and assessing the surroundings to the site, particularly in relation to the 4-story block opposite in Town Lane, and the Grade II* listed building, God's Providence, opposite in Pyle Street.

Relevant History

Most recent planning history relates to a proposal for the demolition of the building which immediately abutted the Conservative Club and the total development of the site with a three-storey building to provide a retail unit and restaurant on the ground floor with six flats on first floor and four flats on the second floor. Also as a second element of proposed development on this site was an advert application for illuminated double-sided projecting sign and three illuminated fascia signs and illuminated menu box sign. Both applications were refused in September 2001 for the following reasons:

Proposal by means of its modernist approach with particular reference to the design of the roof represents an inappropriate urban design failing to respond to the general prevailing pattern of development in the town centre and the distinct character of the immediate vicinity of Town Lane and Pyle Street. Consequently the proposal fails to protect or enhance the character and amenities of the designated conservation area and adversely affects the setting of the nearby Listed Building on the north side of Pyle Street contrary to Strategic Policy S6 and Detailed Policies G4(a)1, D1(a), D6(a)(b), B2 and B6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Members are advised that an Appeal has been lodged in respect of this refusal under the Informal Hearing Procedure with a hearing date being set for March 2002.

The Advertisement Consent application this was refused for the following reason:

The proposed signs by reason of their size and method of illumination (internally illuminated) would be unduly prominent on this prominent corner site to the detriment of the visual amenities of the Newport conservation area.

Finally for information in November 1998 approval was granted for the conversion of the roof space of the Savoy Court opposite the site to form seven self-contained flats and again this consent has not been implemented.

Details of Application

Detailed consent is sought for mixed use development comprising commercial on the ground floor and two floors of residential with the scheme representing virtual total site coverage as follows:

Ground Floor -

Proposal indicates two commercial units one being for retail use having floor area of approximately 110 sq. metres with the remainder being for restaurant use being approximately 320 sq. metres. The restaurant unit to be situated on the corner having in part its frontage on to Pyle Street and in part frontage on to Town Lane. Floor plan indicates a splayed feature on the corner of Town Lane with Pyle Street with glazed curtain walling set 1.2 metres behind back of footpath to Town Lane. Submitted plan indicates a handrail will be erected along the back of footpath but no details have been submitted with the design being dependant upon the occupier of the restaurant premises. In terms of the retail unit shop front to be situated on the back edge of the footpath. Again no details have been indicated in respect of the shop front itself being again dependant upon the future occupier.

First Floor -

Proposal indicates 2 one-bedroom flats 4 two-bedroom flats accessed via a communal staircase. Access to the staircase is off Pyle Street immediately adjacent no. 38 Pyle Street. One of the 2 one-bedroom units is provided with a balcony on the west facing elevation.

Second Floor -

Proposal indicates 6 two-bedroom flats access to a staircase as described above and also indicated balcony on the north western facing elevation.

Elevations -

Elevational treatments indicate use of dressed render finish with projecting mouldings to ground floor and in part first floor with remaining floors being finished in a yellow/buff brick under slated hipped roof with projecting eaves and fascia. Other features relate to balconies at first and second floor on the splayed element of the elevation fronting Pyle Street. Windows to be of vertical emphasis design of sashed portions at first and second floor. Proposal indicates soldier courses above the windows at first and second floor with limited decorative projecting brick features. Proposal does not include details of the proposed shop fronts which applicant indicates to be likely to be subject of separate application dependant upon the prospective occupier. Proposal has a height of 9.1 metres ground floor to eaves and 12.4 metres ground floor to ridge.

Proposal provides zero parking and the existing service area will be maintained to service the premises particularly the commercial premises at ground floor.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

The site is situated within the Newport conservation area with the southern boundary of the site forming the boundary to that conservation area. The site is also within Newport town centre boundary as defined on the Unitary Development Plan.

National policies are covered in PPG1 - General Policies and Principles, PPG3 - Housing March 2000, PPG13 - Transport and PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment.

PPG1 - General Policies and Principles covers the following:

Emphasises the need for a plan-led system which is given statutory force by Section 54A of the Act.

Emphasises the promotion of sustainable development seeking to deliver the objectives of achieving now and in the future economic development to secure high living standards whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.

Emphasises the importance of design making particular reference to:

New buildings having significant effect on character and quality of the area.

Building defining public spaces, streets emphasising that appearance of development and its relationship to surroundings are material considerations.

Describes urban design as complex relationship between all the elements of built and un-built space.

Refers to good design helping to promote sustainable development, improve quality of the existing environment, attract business and investment and reinforce civic pride in sense of place.

Planning Authorities are encouraged to reject poor design which may include those inappropriate to the context for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.

PPG3 - Housing March 2000 emphasises the following:

Provide wider housing opportunity and ensure this by including better mix and size, type and location of housing.

Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off development of greenfield sites.

Create more sustainable patterns of development ensuring accessibility by public transport.

Promote good design to create attractive high quality living environments in which people will chose to live.

Promote developments which combined mix of land uses including housing either on a site or within individual buildings such as flats over shops. Such types of development will bring new life and housing opportunities into town centres.

PPG13 - Transport March 2001 emphasises the following:

Promotion of more sustainable choices for both people and for moving freight.

Promote accessibility to job, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling.

Reduce the need to travel especially by car.

In relation to the current application the document makes specific reference to "use parking policies alongside other planning and transport measures to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys, and, accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas planning for increase intensity of development for both housing and other uses at location which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling".

PPG15 - Identifies Government policies in respect of identification and protection of conservation areas and explains the role played by the planning system in such protection.

In terms of Development Control reference is made to Section 72 of the relevant Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

Document also makes reference to general advice on design considerations which are relevant to the exercise of planning control.

Finally, in terms of National Policies, Members attention is drawn to two other documents produced by the DTLR one being Design - urban design in the planning system towards better practise and By Design - better places to live a companion guide to PPG3. Both documents emphasize the importance of encouraging quality urban design by expressing its main objectives through the various aspects of the built form.

With regard to the By Design document particular reference is made as follows:

Good urban design is rarely brought about by Local Authority prescribing physical solutions, or by setting rigid or empirical design standards but by approaches which emphasises design objectives or principles.

Local Plan Policies

Local Plan Policies are listed as below:

Policy G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

Policy D1 - Standards of Design.

Policy D2 - Standards of Development Within the Site.

Policy H10 - Residential Development above ground floor level in town centres.

Policy B6 - Protections and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

Policy B7 - Demolition of Non-Listed Buildings in Conservation Areas.

Policy TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

Members attention is drawn to the proximity of Listed Buildings to the site with particular attention to the location of "Gods Providence" being a Grade II Star Listed Building and situated to the north of the site being on the northern side of Pyle Street but relating more distinctly to St. Thomas Square than Pyle Street.

Site is situated within Zone 2 under the Parking Guidelines Policy which comprises the out of town centre and inner fringes of Newport. Within Zone 2 between 0 - 50% of the calculated guideline figure will be an acceptable provision.

Members' attention is drawn to the commuted payments policy in relation to new developments which will increase burden on alternative modes of transport. Such commuted payments will be placed in a sustainable transport fund which will contribute to improvements to facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport. This policy is triggered by residential developments of ten units or more and relates to parking Zone 2 in Newport. The amount of monies involved relates to �750 per unit.

Representations

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

Application has been considered by the Architects Panel who comment as follows:

Comparing this scheme with the previous scheme looked at by Panel, Members were of the opinion that this was not an improvement, the roof appeared disassociated from the design of the facade below.

Panel suggested that the previous scheme which had their support was the better.

The comments of Development Plan Officers have been sought in respect of transport infra-structure payments bearing in mind the statement within the applicants design statement that no commuted sum can be justified. They comment as follows:

Appendix G Part IV of the UDP - the Council states clearly that "all development places demands on the transport system infra-structure". By seeking to reduce car parking provision the impact of new development places increased burden on alternative forms of transport.

Funds raised by commuted transport infra-structure payments are not intended to increases levels of parking provision but are looking to improve facilities for pedestrian, cyclists and users of public transport. This negates the supporting statement comment that no commuted sum can be justified.

This second application on this site has attracted two letters of comment, one from the owner of Gods Providence House and one from Islandwatch. Points raised are summarised as follows:

Introduction of a pitched roof is a step in the right direction, however, building is considered still to be overbearing and insensitive to its surroundings. Suggested that mass and scale is similar to the building opposite (Savoy Court) which objector considers is the wrong building to link the proposal.

One suggestion is that the design of the balcony to be varied to provide a more pleasing aesthetic appearance. Also important that all materials are in keeping with the surrounding building.

Writer reiterates his previous points on the refused application that development on this site should be carefully considered bearing in mind its important location.

Owner of the adjoining Listed Building points out the steps which have been taken to ensure that building retains its historical character and therefore any adjoining development should respect that particular building as well as the overall conservation area.

Applicants have submitted a Noise Consultants report which has been forwarded to Council's Environmental Health department for comment and at the time of preparing this report those comments have yet to be received.

Applicants have submitted details of materials to be used which are specified to be a quality artificial slate over yellow/buff facing bricks with ashlar render.

Evaluation

Only issue to consider in respect of this second application is whether or not the applicant has addressed the clear design concerns that Members had following their site inspection in respect of the previous proposal. Obviously Members should note that the applicant has gone to Appeal in respect of that previous refusal. However, running parallel with that process applicants have decided to submit a further application indicating a more traditional approach with the main change being the provision of a hipped roof as described.

This clearly introduces a building more in character with the theme of development in the area which, apart from one or two exceptions, is traditional in nature with pitched roofs and not flat roof finish which from records appear to be the alien feature which Members consider to be most inappropriate.

Members will note the comments of the Architects Panel in respect of this proposal with that Panel clearly preferring the previous scheme. Obviously this comment does present difficulty for, as Members will be aware, the issue of aesthetics is subjective in nature.

In their supporting design statement applicants have carried out a contextual analysis which clearly recognises the important corner location of the site and have referred to the visual aspect of Listed Buildings in the vicinity. I quote the relevant extracts as follows:

"The surrounding buildings to the proposed site on all sides and those opposite barring the Listed Buildings are of relatively non-descript quality. The existing surrounding buildings range from one to four storeys often with high pitched roofs. Permission exists to add a fifth storey into the existing roof space into part of the Savoy Court.

The existing site is unattractive and presents an unattractive visual and physical gap in the street-scape. The varying styles, materials and masses of the surrounding area and roof-scapes with the latter in particular providing a large variety of different examples. The variety of styles that have to be addressed in the building provides a considerable challenge to the design team".

They also refer to the principle design elements of the proposed scheme featuring the following:

Prominent entrance with featured faceted corner elevation and glazed feature canopy.

Projecting and recessed upper floor balconies.

Vertical emphasis to design.

Variety of appropriate materials.

Roof lines and eaves to provide visual interest.

In terms of the main alteration from the previous scheme i.e. the introduction of a pitched roof they state the following:

The team has deliberately emphasized a corner to introduce a positive design statement while respecting the scale and proportion of the surrounding buildings and in particular the two 4-storey buildings on the opposite side of Town Lane.

The pitch roof design adds visual interest and compliments adjoining roof-line. The plant room at second floor level is enclosed so as not to protrude above roof level.

The elevations and all consistent elements are articulated to introduce a vertical solution to the proposed design.

Visual quality and interest is achieved by selection of materials that relate to a human scale comprising of render facing brick as described previously.

In the final analysis the ultimate test is whether this building protects or enhances the Conservation Area. Members clearly indicated from their previous decision that preference should be given to a more traditional approach which the applicants have taken on board and whilst I am conscious of the Architects Panel comments in this case due deference should be given to Members' views and therefore I consider the scheme acceptable in design terms.

The only other issue to consider is that relating to a commuted payment towards the sustainable transport fund as required under Policy TR16 Appendix G of the IW Unitary Development Plan. Members will note that the applicant has in his design statement put the opinion forward that this commuted sum is not justified. I have advised the applicant that I disagree with that opinion and that I would continue to recommend that such a commuted payment be sought under a Legal Agreement (Planning Obligation) a factor which he appeared to accept. In this regard Members will note that the number of residential units in respect of this application has increased by two (previous scheme ten flats current scheme twelve flats) which would result in the commuted payment of �9,000 (12 x �750).

I can see no justification for supporting the application without the contribution required by UDP policy.

In all other respects I confirm that the proposal continues to be in compliance with the advice contained in PPG3 in respect of mixed use developments within town centres and obviously will satisfy the test of contributing towards vitality and viability of town centres.

I also understand that the A3 (Restaurant Use) has a prospective occupier.

Finally, I will continue to suggest a condition covering shop-front design particularly in respect of unit 1 being the retail unit where there is, as I understand it, an unknown occupier. I therefore suggest the condition should Members be mindful to approve requiring a temporary shop-front be installed for a period of 12-months after which if the occupancy is still unknown a permanent shop-front of agreed design be installed.

Archaeological issues have been fully resolved in respect of the previous application subject to the suggested condition which was put forward in respect of the previous proposal which I will repeat in respect of this current application.

Given the above I recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am of the view that following the previous refusal applicants have satisfactorily amended the scheme in the form of a traditional approach and therefore proposal is considered to be acceptable in compliance with Policy D1 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan. I am also of the view that the mixed development is acceptable and the zero parking option and archaeological issues have been fully addressed.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans) (subject to a Section 106 agreement in respect of a commuted payment of �9,000 towards a sustainable transport fund under Policy TR16 (Appendix G) of the IW Unitary Development Plan).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the existing building and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The use of any A3 premises hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside 1000 hours to 2400 hours seven days a week. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and occupiers of nearby properties in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to the A1/A3 use being brought into operation, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours of goods deliveries and goods despatches and the use shall not commence until these hours have been approved or amended as necessary by the Local Planning Authority. Any such goods delivery or goods despatches shall be from the existing rear service yard accessed from Town Lane. Reason: To protect the amenities and nearby premises in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to any A3 use hereby authorised commencing, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended range of goods to be prepared and sold within the premises. Upon receipt of this information, the Local Planning Authority shall within 21 days specify measures to be taken by the applicant for the control of odour from the premises use. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until these measures have been completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any odour control measures specified by the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained thereafter in the premises whilst the use continues. Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby premises in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	If upon completion of either of the units hereby approved developers do not have any specific users in mind, then a temporary shop front structure shall be inserted in the form of hit and miss timber screening with a dark brown stained finish to be inserted between the new pilasters with fascia over. Such temporary shop front shall be affixed in position for a maximum period of twelve months at which time they shall be removed and replaced by a permanent shop front of a design, construction and colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policies D1 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	All operation of plant, machinery, business activities and proposed controls shall be limited to a decibel level not exceeding those recommended in the Noise Consultant's Report dated 8 October 2001 which forms part of this approval. All such agreed noise emission levels shall be retained and shall not be exceeded thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

7.	TCP/04606/A P/00542/01 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton Registration Date: 26/03/2001 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Outline for detached house with integral garage land between Glenholme and The Halliards, New Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO33

Site and Location

Application relates to triangular plot of land currently used for allotment purposes situated on south eastern side of New Road approximately some 80 metres north of junction with St Edmund's Walk. Site has return frontage to Wootton Creek.

Relevant History

None.

Details of Application

This is an outline application with siting to be considered at this stage. Briefly, the application seeks consent for construction of a detached dwelling house.

Submitted plans indicate centrally sited dwelling having an integral garage set back average distance of some 8 metres from edge of footpath.

Proposal would result in demolition of shelter and shed and utilise existing vehicular entrance which has benefit of dropped kerb at southern corner of site.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Site lies immediately inside northern limit of development envelope boundary where it routes across New road as shown on the Unitary Development Plan. North eastern boundary of site coincides with northern limit of development envelope boundary.

Site unallocated for any specific purpose within Unitary Development Plan.

Wootton creek is designated a Special Protection Area and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Representations

Wootton Bridge Parish council object to application on grounds of highway safety as proposed access is sited on dangerous bend where cars are usually parked. Concern is expressed over highway safety issue associated with vehicles coming out from site onto wrong side of this bend between parked cars. Parish Council is of the opinion that access and visibility splay are unsuitable. Secondly, Village Design Statement states: "new buildings should respect the inherent scale of the setting". Parish Council is of the view that the proposal contravenes this guidance.

Environmental Health Officer has no comment to make on this application.

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

English Nature consider there will not be a direct detrimental impact of this proposal on the SSSI or European site. Consequently, they advise that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the European site and will not require an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations. They do note however that there may be some concern about adequacy of current sea defences to provide adequate protection in long-term. Draft Coastal Defence Policy for Creek states that whilst repair and replacement are acceptable, there should be no extension or increase in defences. This issue may need to be taken into account when determining the application. Applicant has been advised of this issue during negotiations on the application.

Initially Environment Agency raised no objection. However, following further consultation with them, they advised they are aware of possible flooding in vicinity of this site. They advised applicant should be requested to carry out local investigations to determine extent of flooding and to set floor levels accordingly. The predicted 0.5% probability extreme sea level in the year 2060 for this area is 3.4 metres above ODN. This makes an allowance of 6mm/year for global warming/land sinking. They also suggest that in addition to raising floor slab levels, then appropriate point of elevated access should be incorporated into the design in order to facilitate emergency evacuation. Finally, current proposed development on site is unlikely to place adjoining properties at an increased flood risk in the light of the watercourse being affected by the natural tidal cycle of Wootton Creek. After reviewing submitted documentation and following an inspection, the Agency now consider the proposal acceptable.

Southern Water has been consulted and comments received will be reported at the meeting.

Six letters have been received raising concern/objection to proposal on following grounds:

Traffic congestion and dangerous nature of this section of New Road.

Inadequacy of sewerage system in locality.

Inappropriate development of site by reason of intermittent flooding of the land in question.

Loss of privacy and conflict in interest with regard to access to Wootton Creek and use of waterside frontage.

Evaluation

Given site's location within development envelope, there is no objection in principle to development of this site for residential purposes subject to more detailed matters including appropriateness of plot size, impact on street scene and effect on adjoining residential occupiers. In addition, because of location of site, application needs to be assessed in terms of matters relating to both ground stability and potential flood risk.

In terms of plot size, whilst width of plot tapers there is, in my opinion, sufficient width in front of site to accommodate a dwelling. Additionally, depth of plot is similar to other houses in the immediate locality.

Adjoining residential development is sited reasonable distance from the common boundaries to the application site and I therefore consider the siting of dwelling as indicated would not adversely impact on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers. Obviously, care would have to be taken at the detailed stage to ensure sensitive siting of any first floor windows.

In terms of street scene, again siting is considered to be appropriate respecting curvature of the road at this point and again, subject to appropriate consideration at detailed stage, I do not consider there is any obvious objection in terms of impact on street scene.

With regards access, Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions including requirements of lower roadside boundary over whole frontage to improve visibility onto New road. Development does utilise existing dropped kerb which serves a joint access with adjoining residential property.

Whilst comments and information supplied by third parties indicate site is subject to periodic flooding due primarily to combination of high tides, heavy rain and consequent backing up of the stream which runs alongside of application site, Environment Agency consider proposal acceptable and I am advised by the Building Control Manager that intermittent flooding problem can be overcome by construction of appropriately designed foundations and internal floor levels.

Following updated comments from the Environment Agency, applicant has addressed flood risk assessment and confirms floor slab level of approximately one metre above top of sea wall which it is claimed will be more than adequate to cater for tidal increases and land sinking predictions. Submitted street scene elevation indicates that two storey dwelling could be accommodated within site which, whilst taking into account adjusted floor slab levels, would result in building having similar or lower ridge height than adjacent property known as The Halliards.

Given that the site is affected by natural tidal cycle of Wootton Creek, any flood plain waters rise slowly and are relatively shallow and slow flowing. Development of the site would not impede flood flows or have any significant effect on flood storage capacity. Mitigation in the form of raising floor levels is appropriate solution in this instance involving acceptable environmental cost. As required by PPG25, the additional information and revised scheme submitted by the applicant has satisfied the Local Planning Authority that any flood risk can be successfully managed with minimum environmental impact.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, I consider the development to be consistent and compatible with the form and character of development in the locality without adversely affecting the amenities of the surrounding residential occupiers and is therefore consistent with Policies D1, H5, D2 and G6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

1. Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the Unitary Development Plan.
4	Provision of turning area - K40
5	Provision (loading, unloading & parking - K01
6	Lowering of boundary - J23
7	Prior to the commencement of any work pursuant to this approval, a competent person's assessment of the ground conditions of the site together with suggested foundation design details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and incorporated in any residential development of this site. Reason: To ensure that any adverse ground conditions encountered may be satisfactorily overcome and the site development for (residential) purposes and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The ground floor levels of the dwelling hereby approved shall be set at a minimum level of 6.13 metres above Ordnance Datum Newlyn. Reason: To minimise the impact of flooding on the occupants of the proposed dwelling and to comply with Policy G6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That a letter be sent to applicant advising of Environment Agency's comments.

8.

TCP/21760/S P/01905/01 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood Registration Date: 24/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Building to provide office space & radar testing facilities including two towers supporting radar equipment with maximum height of approximately 23 metres and 35 metres (revised description - readvertised application) BAE Systems (Defence Systems) Ltd, Newport Road, Cowes, PO31

Site and Location

Application relates to BAE Systems complex (formerly Siemens Plessey Radar) situated between Newport Road, Place Road and Three Gates Road with main access from Newport Road. Current proposal relates to part of open field on northern side of site, bounded to north by Three Gates Road and to east by Newport Road. Area defined as application site by red line on submitted plans is located immediately adjacent and to north of existing car park with creation of new access road onto Three Gates Road.

Relevant History

Planning history of this site is somewhat complex and varied including applications for extensions to existing buildings, erection of new buildings and other structures in connection with the industrial use of the site. Planning history of most relevance to current proposal involved the replacement of a lattice mast, with height of approximately 30 metres (approved in September 1970) with a radar testing facility, approved October 1990 having a concrete tower with height of approximately 30 metres. Members will be familiar with this structure which is located at southern end of site, to rear of properties fronting Nodes Road.

Details of Application

BAE Systems and Vospers have been awarded contracts to build the first of six UK type 45 Destroyers. Part of the project involves a land based facility on which all of the equipment fitted on the ship will be installed in a representative fashion in order to provide for ongoing development of the ships systems. Covering letter which accompanies application indicates that the proposal involves erection of a two storey building with length of 72 metres and width of 15 metres with representative masts at each end to support Samson and long range radars in approximately the spatial configuration of the Type 45 Destroyer. Furthermore, letter indicates that current estimates suggests that top of the Samson antenna will be at about 31 metres above ground level. Application was also accompanied by initial sketch proposals indicating that Samson radar on the tower on the northern end of the building would be positioned at maximum height of approximately 35 metres above ground level with long range radar on the tower at the southern end of the building having overall height of approximately 23 metres. Following discussions with applicants, it is understood that the project is at relatively early stage and specific details relating to size of building and internal layout together with height of masts is yet to be finalised. However, the plans which accompanied the application provide details of general appearance of the facility and maximum dimensions.

Information submitted with application indicates that building is to be of clad steel frame construction with precast concrete floors. The radar masts would be stiffened frames clad with steel plate constructed and supplied by a shipyard. The whole of the facility, including the antenna assemblies would be finished in a goosewing grey colour.

Proposal also includes formation of new vehicular access to site from Three Gates Road.

Development Plan Zoning and/or Policy

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be located within development envelope for the Cowes and Northwood area and is long established industrial/employment site, although not allocated as such in the plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

S5 - Proposals for development which on balance will be for the overall benefit of the Island, by enhancing the economic, social or environmental position will be approved, provided any adverse impacts can be ameliorated.

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

G1 - Development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes. Land outside the boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

G4 - General locational criteria for development. Proposals will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy, which in general, seek to protect the character and environment of the area.

D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should conform with the criteria set out in the policy.

E1 - Promote suitably located new employment uses. The Council will promote and encourage the development of new and existing employment uses.

E2 - Planning applications for employment related development to meet the requirements of a major employer who wishes to redevelop on, or relocate to the Island and which would be to the overall benefit of the Island community, will be acceptable in principle on any suitable sites allocated for development.

E3 - Planning applications which protect or enhance the employment use of existing and allocated employment land and premises will be approved.

E6 - Planning application for expansion of existing industry and offices will be approved, particularly where this will lead to additional job opportunities, except where proposal would have unacceptable impact on the surrounding area and use is inappropriate in its existing location and is not possible to overcome identified problems.

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

National Air Traffic Services advise that development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, the Department has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

Evaluation

Determining factors in considering application are considered to be the visual impact of the proposal and its effect on the character of the area and employment issues associated with the development.

Having regard to proposed location of building in open field on northern side of site and, in particular, height of masts supporting radar equipment, facility will undoubtedly be prominent within the immediate locality and is likely to be visible over longer distances when viewed from areas such as East Cowes, land to west of Cowes and from within the Solent. Other features within the locality of similar height to the proposed facility include the tower located on the southern side of the BAE System site. Applicants advise in the letter which accompanies the submission that this tower is approximately 33 metres high and is situated on ground some 3 metres higher than the site of the proposed facility In addition, Members are advised that the lattice tower at the telecommunications installation located to north of application site, adjacent Broadfields Reservoir, off Love Lane has an overall height of approximately 33 metres. I consider that these structures provide a useful guide as to the likely impact of the current proposal. Existing buildings within the applicant's site are of substantial proportions and it is considered that radar equipment of this type has become a common and accepted feature of the site.

Letter which accompanies application providing information in support of proposal addresses issues relating to radar transmissions from the proposed facility. The information indicates that transmission requirements are anticipated at 50 days per year and, more importantly, confirms that transmissions from the facility will comply with the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (INCIRP) guidelines for exposure to radio frequency radiation, both on an occupational basis and for exposure to the general public. Applicants point out that there is currently no definitive legal limit for radio frequency radiation levels specified in the UK, although a value of 100 W/msq has been in use for many years as a standard. The applicants emphasize that the Cowes standard operates at a ten fold safer level of 10 W/msq in line with the latest ICNIRP guidelines. In addition, they stress that the ALARP principle (as low as reasonably practicable) is adopted when undertaking any activity. In addition, it is understood, following discussions with the applicants, that the signal from the facility would be transmitted in such a way that it would pass over buildings in the surrounding area, and in particular Love Lane Primary School north of the application site.

I consider that the employment implications associated with the proposal are an important material consideration in the determination of the application. In this respect, letter which accompanies application advises as follows:

"The Type 45 CSSF is a major long-term investment and its being located at Cowes would bring enormous benefit to the future of the site. Its purpose is to provide an integration facility with a representative layout of the ship equipment. It will provide a facility for training and engineering development throughout the life of the class of the ship (estimated at some 30 years)."

In addition to the above information, applicants have confirmed that, in addition to providing security to existing jobs on the site, proposal will also generate additional employment. Whilst at the present time, applicants have been unable to provide specific details regarding number of jobs likely to be created by the proposal, they have made the following comments:-

"The Combat System Support Facility will be a major benefit to BAE Systems (C & RS) if it were located at Cowes. Not only will the facility generate substantial commercial opportunities of itself in that it will support a range of engineering and technical training packages in the facility throughout the life of the ships, but it will be a permanent "shop window" for our world leading product. This facility with its operational radar will emphasize our marketing position and hence increase business (and employment) opportunities at the main Cowes site".

They comment that the CSSF is a substantial facility, which due to its size and position will not readily be relocated elsewhere once it has been established. The applicants consider that this can only help to further secure the future of the Cowes site as a world leader in research and development of radar systems in an ever changing defence industry and will also expand the business into this branch of customer support services hitherto established elsewhere. The establishment of the facility at the Cowes site will require hardware and software engineers, project managers etc. in addition to the existing personnel.

Proposal includes provision of additional access onto Three Gates Road, the position of which has been determined following discussion with Highway Engineers prior to the submission of the application. Application does not include details of the layout of the access onto Three Gates Road or the precise alignment and construction of the access road. However, should Members be minded to approve the application, I am satisfied that submission of such details for approval by the Authority can be required by condition of any approval. Similarly, applicants indicate that, in order to mitigate the visual impact of the facility from the road, they would be prepared to carry out landscaping around the building and submission of such details can be required by condition.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, and in assessing the effect of the proposal, it is accepted that the facility will be prominent within the immediate locality and visible over longer distances. In terms of impact of proposal on properties surrounding the BAE Systems site, it is considered that building would be located in most appropriate position on site, directly opposite other commercial premises in Three Gates Road and Newport Road. Having regard to use of site for commercial purposes, and in particular an industry involved in the development of radar systems, such a facility may not be considered to be out of place. Proposal clearly has significant implications in terms of employment, both in securing existing jobs and potentially creating new ones. In this respect, I consider that the proposal complies with the Employment Policies in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to no further comments being received by 21 December 2001 raising any new issues which would warrant reconsideration of the application).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to any work commencing on site, including site clearance, full details of the final dimensions of the facility shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The external surfaces of the proposed facility shall be finished, and thereafter maintained, in a Goosewing grey colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the building being brought into use or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Visibility splays of x = 4.5 metres and y = 120 metres dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained hereafter, Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Access - junction details - J36
8	Provision (loading, unloading & parking - K01
9	The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made for the secure and covered parking of bicycles in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles and to comply with Policy TR6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to work commencing on site, details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses, car parking areas together with details of the disposal of surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

PART III

9.	TCPL/01903/P P/01331/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East Registration Date: 26/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Pair of semi-detached houses land rear of 60 Union Street, fronting, Church Lane, Ryde, PO33

See joint report on application no. LBC/1903R/P1332/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The doors and door/window frames of the building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to match those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the designated Conservation Area in accordance with IW Unitary Development Plan Policy B6.
5	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of one parking space per dwelling including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for (light/heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. (b) Footway Construction (strengthening) for heavy vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 375mm 2. Lay and compact 150mm minimum thickness of Type 1 granular sub-base material 3. Lay single reinforced concrete to Class C40P/20; mesh fabric C385 (3.41 kg/sq m) to a minimum depth of 225mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. 4. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

LBC/01903/R P/01332/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East Registration Date: 26/07/2001 - Listed Building Consent Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 LBC for demolition of existing building; construction of pair of semi-detached houses land rear of 60 Union Street, fronting, Church Lane, Ryde, PO33

Representations

Highway Engineer comments that site is within zone 2 and a maximum of 50% of the permitted parking capacity is allowed in this area. However, the area to the rear of this provides considerably more parking space than is needed for the two cars and it would therefore be difficult to enforce the condition in respect of the existing parking area. Also, achieving the required site line is not possible, but as traffic speeds and pedestrian flows are very low, these factors would not constitute grounds for refusal. Conditions regarding parking and access to the site are therefore suggested if the application is approved.

Letters have been received objecting to the application from owners of cottage which immediately abut the site with matters raised summarised below:

Application is ill advised in the extreme. Proposed buildings abut a listed building at the rear of the Victoria Arcade giving little or no access to effect repairs to the side wall.

The proposed right of way would appear to leave insufficient space for its actual purpose at the side of the proposed dwellings.

The properties are not in keeping with the ethos of the heart of Church Lane and would take light from the adjacent much smaller Victorian property for many hours of the day and would shield sun from the garden.

The lane is very narrow and not designed to be a highway for numerous dwellings and proposals may result in accidents occurring.

Adjacent property to the north has been subject to major subsidence in year previously. The proposed development would undoubtedly see the return of subsidence causing further damage.

The adjoining property to the south comprises the rear part of the Royal Victoria Arcade which has a deep basement and ventilation bricks adjoining the site. Concern is expressed that the proposed works would adversely affect the structure of the adjoining building and also blocking the existing vents would adversely affect the interior accommodation of the basement area.

Two letters of objection received from local residents indicating that proposed development would affect a Grade II* listed building and should not be allowed. Proposal would also result in loss of several valued car parking spaces at a time when parking is at a premium. Church Lane already gives the impression of being overbuilt with properties fronting onto the pavement and thus affected by traffic and pedestrians. To fill every last gap would seem unjustified in view of the amount of empty properties in the area. Development would result in loss of sunlight and privacy to local residents and nearby gardens.

Letter received from the Georgian Group indicating that the building dates wholly or largely from outside of the period in which the Group is interested and comments are therefore deferred to other national amenity societies.

Members are advised that following receipt of the above comments, further information and revised details have been submitted relocating the proposed dwelling slightly away from the adjoining wall of the Royal Victoria Arcade and also providing structural engineer's information regarding ground stability in the area. The previous objectors have been notified of this information and have confirmed previous objections and whilst noting comments made by the professional structural engineer, continue to express significant concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on the stability of the site and adjoining properties, bearing in mind the history of subsidence in the area and problems associated with the existing construction and deep basement of the adjoining property.

The Council's Principal Building Control Surveyor has commented on the structural engineer's report and also carried out an inspection of the site and indicates that he is not aware of overall ground stability problems in the area and the steepness of the slope does not suggest this would be a concern. Any previous structural problems to the property in the area are likely to be localised. The presence of a basement storey to the adjoining property would not affect the stability of the adjacent structure provided a suitable foundation design to overcome the problem is employment. The detailed design of these foundations will be dealt with under the Building Regulations.

Evaluation

The applications under consideration relate to a concrete yard/parking area situated at the rear of no. 60 Union Street and abutting existing premises which front onto Church Lane. The property to the north comprises a two storey dwelling with a garden area to the rear, whilst the property to the south comprises the rear section of the Royal Victoria Arcade which is a substantial Grade II* listed building incorporating a deep basement area and having ventilation bricks in the side wall of the property.

The site also includes an external fire escape and also a single storey flat roofed extension forming the rear part of no. 60 Union Street.

Outline planning approval was granted on this site for two town houses in December 1990 and a subsequent application for construction of two dwellings with a central arched access was approved in 1994. Subsequent application for a terrace of three houses with one unit fronting Church Lane and the other two units situated to the rear backing onto the southern boundary of 24 Church Lane with an access adjacent to the Royal Victoria Arcade was refused in May 2001 for reasons of overdevelopment, detrimental effect on the designated Conservation Area by reason of scale, massing and height and adverse effect on the setting of nearby listed building.

The site is within a designated Conservation Area and is situated to the rear of a Grade II listed building and also abuts the rear of the Royal Victoria Arcade which is a Grade II* listed building.

The application details include demolition of this later extension which forms part of the listed building and repair and reinstatement of the existing rear elevation of no. 60 Union Street.

Although these proposals do include demolition of the rear part of this listed building, as indicated above, the part to be demolished is a later extension of unsatisfactory appearance and there are considered no planning objections to this element of the proposal.

The main part of the application includes construction of a pair of semi-detached two storey cottages fronting onto Church Lane with vehicular access to the north between the proposed dwellings and the existing property (no. 24 Church Lane).

The dwellings would each have two bedroom accommodation with a small yard/amenity space at the rear.

Members are advised that following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted which show the proposed dwellings moved slightly away from the adjoining wall of the Royal Victoria Arcade leaving a gap of approximately 150 mm to avoid damaging the side wall of the adjacent property and also to ensure that the existing air vents are not blocked by the proposals.

Following discussion and negotiations, revised plans also show some changes to the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings following analysis of the character of the area and materials used on existing developments. The proposed dwellings would now comprise a brickwork finish to the lower part of the elevation with traditional timber replacement windows and small lean-to porches on the Church Lane frontage. The upper part would be finished with painted render and a gabled slated roof is also indicated.

Members will be aware that properties fronting Church Lane comprise a variety of designs and materials including facing brickwork, rough cast render, stucco and timber boarding. The adjoining property to the north comprises white painted stucco render with traditional replacement windows, whilst the rear of the Royal Victoria Arcade is painted stucco with a parapet roof and large sliding sash windows.

The proposed dwellings are designed to reflect the scale and proportion of adjoining properties and are of relatively simple design reflecting the characteristics of this part of the Conservation Area. Although the proposed dwellings have limited accommodation, they are considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenities of the future occupants. The submitted details are therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect.

Members will note that the applications have been the subject of comment and objection from the occupiers of the immediate adjoining properties, with particular regard to the effect of the development on the structural stability of their properties and also comments relating to overshadowing and loss of light and amenity to the occupiers of no. 24 Church Lane as a result of the proposed dwellings.

With regard to the first issue, it is acknowledged that the site is surrounded by existing development and there is a slope across the site which falls down to the north. Overall the site measures approximately 10 metres in width with an overall fall of approximately one metre. The adjoining property to the south comprises a deep basement area and the foundation design of the proposed dwellings would obviously have to take account of this factor when the details are designed.

The property to the north has been the subject of structural damage and significant repairs in the past and the objectors have submitted copies of previous engineer's reports relating to an insurance claim in 1988. At that time the engineer indicated that the property was affected by subsidence. However, there were no indications of continuing downward movement of the foundations at that time and the dwelling was considered to all intents and purposes to be stable. However, the neighbouring property (West View) may have subsided further as a consequence of escape from water from underground drains and it was possible that following repair of the drains, the property continued to subside or possibly slip downhill slightly. This has had the effect of pulling the adjacent property which were both constructed at the same time. Comment was also made regarding cracking in the road which may have been subject to damage as a result of tree roots.

The applicant has submitted a statement from a structural engineer indicating that the ground strata a type normally adequate for supporting low rise buildings on traditional foundations. The engineer's comment that the site and adjacent ground appear stable and provided normal health and safety precautions are taken during foundation works, development would not have an adverse effect on adjacent buildings or land. Foundation design would have to take account of adjacent structures, including adjoining basement which may result in construction of an 'eccentric' foundation or alternatively specially cantilevered ground beams to avoid damaging the adjoining property. An alternative solution may be to adopt mini piles keeping an excavation on the site to a minimum. It is acknowledged that the building would have to be designed in such as way as to ensure the adjoining buildings are not adversely affected in any way and this can be designed during the Building Regulation approval stage. The engineer also comments that the requirements of the Party Wall Act mean that all foundation design and proposals would have to be carefully considered and approved by adjoining owners and that photographic records are usually taken prior to any works commencing to agree dilapidations. Members will note that the Principal Building Control Engineer has checked the support and visited the site and concurs with the conclusions.

Although the comments and concerns of the adjoining owners are acknowledged, it would appear that the site is capable of development in the form shown and refusal of the application on these grounds would not be justified in this instance.

With regard to comments made by the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling regarding overshadowing and loss of light, the submitted plans show that the new dwelling would be approximately 2.8 metres away from the adjoining boundary and although the proposed dwelling would be somewhat higher than the existing building, partially resulting from the rise in ground levels to the south and would also project approximately 3.8 metres beyond the existing rear wall of the adjoining property, I do not consider that the height or proximity of the new construction would be so large or overbearing as to result in a significant loss of amenity in this location, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the site is within a built-up town centre area where properties are in close proximity to each other and that a previous consent was granted for two storey dwellings in this location.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed development showing a pair of semi-detached cottages situated fronting onto Church Lane would be acceptable development in this location and would serve to preserve or enhance the character of this part of the Conservation Area and would be an improvement compared with the open concrete yard which currently exists on the site. Although abutting the side elevation of the rear part of the Royal Victoria Arcade, I do not consider this would be detrimental to the setting or appearance of this part of the building and as the properties would not be immediately attached to the structure, would not adversely affect the building itself.

The design and location of the proposed dwellings are similar to those previously approved and have substantially overcome previous concerns relating to the refusal for three dwellings situated within the site close to the northern boundary of the adjoining property.

Although it is acknowledged that there may be structural difficulties with the detailed design of the foundations for the proposed buildings, I do not consider the site to be incapable of development in the form shown provided the detailed design of the foundations takes account of the local conditions. This matter would be effectively be controlled by Building Regulations and other legislation covering liability to adjacent owners.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable under the terms of Unitary Development Plan Policies D1 (Design), B1 and B2 (Alterations and Setting of Listed Buildings), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas), H5 (Infill Development), H6 (High Density Residential Development) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land). The applications are therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation - Approval (both applications) (subject to standard covering letter regarding ground stability).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - listed building - A11
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority has been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The doors and door/window frames of the building shall be constructed of timber and shall be painted and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the designated Conservation Area in accordance with IW Unitary Development Plan Policy B6.
5	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of one parking space per dwelling including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for (light/heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

11.

TCP/02012/R P/01828/01 Parish/Name: Wroxall Ward: Wroxall and Godshill Registration Date: 17/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571 Retention of 1.8m high timber close boarded fence mounted on brick dwarf wall (max height 0.74m) to western boundary land adjacent 55 Clarence Road/ corner of, Mountfield Road, Wroxall, Ventnor, PO38

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Wroxall Parish Council object to the application on the grounds that:

It has been erected in non-compliance with condition 5 of the original planning approval for the construction of the dwelling.

The overall height of the fence is in excess of the 2 metre limit and this has been constructed on built-up land rather than the original ground level.

Evaluation

The application relates to a recently constructed dwelling on the western side of Clarence Road with a double road frontage onto Mountfield Road. The property is at a lower ground level to Clarence Road.

This is a retrospective application for the retention of a 1.8 metre high timber close boarded fence mounted on top of a brick dwarf wall with a maximum height of 0.74 metres on the western boundary of the property. To the west of the site at a lower ground level a bungalow has been recently constructed, almost completed and not yet occupied. The dwarf wall has been constructed as a retaining wall due to the change in ground levels between the application site and the bungalow.

Whilst it is appreciated that on the original planning consent for the dwelling - TCP/2012P, condition no. 4 stated:

"No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plan and shall include the retention of the existing front boundary wall and fence in its entirety.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area."

Indeed, the condition does state:

"The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied and as yet the dwelling is completed but not occupied."

Members will note that the development has been completed, but not yet occupied and the condition does not imply that no fencing is acceptable. I do not consider that condition no. 5 is relevant in this instance.

I consider that the determining factors in considering this application are the impact that the fence has on the amenities of the area and the adjoining property. The newly constructed bungalow to the west of the site in my opinion, will not experience any loss of amenity if the fence is retained. It is also necessary to consider the relevant policies. I consider that Policy D1 (Standards of Design) is relevant and as this form of close boarded fencing is common practice on new development and the visual integrity of the area has been respected with this proposal, the retention of the fence and the dwarf wall will not be contrary to Policy D1. As this is a retrospective application, it is possible to see the impact that the development has on the surrounding area. It is regarded that the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties are not adversely affected.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, it is considered that no reasonable planning objection can be raised in respect of the retention of the fence and approval is recommended accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The fencing hereby approved shall be stained and maintained in a dark brown stain or other colour as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Representations

Gurnard Parish Council objects to the application on the following grounds:

The W.I. hall roadway is not wide enough to accommodate both heavy vehicles and pedestrians safely.

The roadway will extend outside the UDP envelope.

This roadway was specifically excluded in Condition 5 of the granted planning permission for the development of the seven housing units earlier in the year.

Highway Engineer requests one condition, if the application is approved.

A local Councillor comments as follows:

"The available space for a road would prevent easy pedestrian access to the Women's Institute which is the only community type facility that we have in Gurnard. I question the need at this point in time to put a road through linking up with a temporary road for a development on the site. A large number of people of all ages use the Women's Institute building from young children to elderly adults. The use of the road is as I understand it primarily to link up with an at present non-existent road and to be used by construction vehicles. There is basically no room for passing for even ordinary saloon cars at the present time and the safety of the public must be paramount to exercise their legal rights to have access across this piece of land".

Application has been the subject of 17 standard pro-forma letters received from Gurnard residents with that letter stating the following:

"I object to the planning application for a temporary "road" over the development line beyond 44 Worsley Road (reference TCP2080E/P1730/01) on the grounds that it could lead to loss of the Jordan valley to housing development".

Application has been the subject of 45 letters of comment and objection from Gurnard residents plus one each of the following: IW Society neighbouring property occupier (44 Worsley Road), President of the Gurnard Bay Evening Women's Institute; President of Gurnard Women's Institute; organiser of Parent and Toddler Group (With Parent)/Music and Movement Group.

Application has also been the subject of 3 letters of objection and comment from Cowes residents and one from a Newport resident. The points of objections and representations made are as follows and are either all or in part covered in the letters received and itemised below:

Strong emphasis that the existing access is heavily used by various groups both young and old and has functioned for that purpose for at least 35 years and any changes to that use which would involve construction traffic in the short term and additional traffic in the long term would be a source of danger and hazard to those users. Particular reference is made to the use of the access by construction vehicles during the building works both in terms of making up the road and in particular the construction of the dwelling.

Proposal will result in increased traffic entering and leaving Worsley Road which some writers considered to be a busy road in village terms.

Any new access should have a separate foot-path and 3.7 metre width being proposed is insufficient to ensure that vehicles can use the access separate to pedestrians.

Reference is made to how long "temporary" means in respect of the access road across the rear (outside development envelope). Writers suggest that the approved cul-de-sac road to serve all seven units cannot be constructed until the occupiers of 44 Worsley Road have vacated those premises and they can be demolished. Writers suggest that this could be anything up to 20-years or more. What controls could be exercised over that period?

A number of occupiers refer to Condition No. 5 on the Consent for the seven units which prohibited any access to any of the units across the north eastern boundary making specific reference to a temporary access which had been indicated on the approved plan to serve plot 7. Condition required that any alternative access to plot 7 shall be located on the south western side of the existing dwelling 44 Worsley Road. A number of writers considered this condition should be adhered to.

Submitted plans indicate the loss of an important tree with reference being made to this tree providing important wildlife habitat.

Reference is made to disturbance of wildlife habitat including badgers, squirrels etc.

Concern is expressed as to where services will be laid to service the proposed dwelling and if they are to be laid under the temporary access this would suggest this access could have a longer lifetime and be difficult to close if and when the main cul-de-sac is constructed to serve the six remaining approved dwelling.

A number of W.I. hall users have expressed concern that any construction works in respect of the access which serves that building may well encroach and cause damage to the parking area on the southern side of that hall.

If approved and dependant on weather conditions for a period access to the W.I. hall will be seriously affected with the road access potentially becoming a quagmire.

Evaluation

Application relates to in part an area of land situated on the north western side of Worsley Road almost opposite the junction of Worsley Road with Albert Road. Application includes the existing pedestrian and vehicular access to the Women's Institute hall. It has an average width of 3.7 metres although part of this is made up of a small grass margin along the boundary with no. 50 Worsley Road which is a semi-detached house which fronts Worsley Road. Also part of the 3.7 metres has been encroached upon in part by an existing hedge which not only forms the south eastern boundary to the access to the Women's Institute hall but also forms the boundary to a second access which runs parallel and presently serves the property no. 44 Worsley Road.

Remaining area of application site includes a small area of land to the north east of the curtilage boundary of 44 Worsley Road being a very small part of an open field which stretches further to the north east forming part of the Jordan valley. There is a farm gate at the head of the access to the Women's Institute hall beyond which is the field and in close proximity to the gate an ash tree.

Members will be aware of the planning consent which was granted in March 2001 following a Members' site inspection for the demolition of the existing dwelling (44 Worsley Road) and the construction of three terraced houses, one detached house and three detached dormer bungalows providing a total of seven units with car-parking. More significantly in respect of the current application alterations to existing access and driveway to form access road to a proposed courtyard were approved. Members may recall that my recommendation was for conditional approval with one of the suggested conditions being as follows:

The temporary gravel drive shown to serve plot 7 indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be stopped up and abandoned upon completion of the courtyard area which provides permanent access to all seven plots.

Following the site inspection Members agreed to approve the application but amended the above condition to read as follows:

No access shall be obtained to any of the units across the north eastern boundary including the temporary access serving plot 7 as indicated on the submitted plan. Any alternative temporary access to plot 7 shall be located to the south western side of the existing dwelling (44 Worsley Road) and shall be off the new access road alongside the north western boundary of the site.

Reason for this condition is as follows:

To ensure that no development including the suggested temporary access road is undertaken outside the development envelope as defined on the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan.

That Consent also included a number of conditions relating to tree retention and conditions requiring the new access road alongside the northern boundary of the site to be constructed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings constructed pursuant to that Consent.

Current application effectively seeks to amend the above Condition no. 5 and revert back to the original proposal as indicated on the original submitted plan and provide the temporary gravel access to one plot only. The only difference to that proposal is that current application seeks consent to upgrade the existing access to the Women's Institute hall rather than provide a full cul-de-sac road to adoptable standard as indicated on the approved plan for seven units.

Clearly the submission of this application indicates that no agreement has been reached with the occupier of 44 Worsley Road which would enable the implementation of the Consent granted in March 2001 and therefore the applicant is now pursuing through this application alternative access to enable him to construct one of the dwellings approved (plot 7). The application therefore seeks consent for the following:

The up-grading of the existing access to the Women's Institute hall being the access directly adjacent to the south eastern boundary of no. 50 Worsley Road. It does not include the existing access to 44 Worsley Road. The application has been the subject of negotiation to establish in more detail the level of making-up of this access and this is detailed as follows:

1. The 3.7 metre width measured from the existing 2 metre high fence to no. 50 Worsley Road. In part this will also involve the replacement of an existing hedge with a further 2 metre fence to match the existing where the boundary faces the side elevation of no. 50. Proposal also involves the cutting back of an existing privet hedge at the junction with Worsley Road.

2. The trimming back of the existing hedge which runs between the two accesses.

3. The removal of the existing grass verges with the integration of the whole width as a metalled surface.

4. Specification for the access to be 25 mm top finish on 50 mm wearing course on 300 mm hardcore fill with solid sub-base along both edges.

5. Submitted plan indicates a series of gullies along the centre line of the new widened access road to be drained to an existing sewer which runs down the centre line of the access road.

6. This specification to be applied for the whole length of that access to the farm-gate as described above.

7. Proposal also provides, following negotiations, three P.I.R. (passive infra-red) lighting points mounted on 3 metre poles. This is a lighting system which comes on automatically when either a person or vehicle breaks the beam. These three lighting points to be on the 44 metre length of the access between the back of footpath on Worsley Road and the area where the access widens to the Women's Institute hall. The lighting points to be on the north western side of the access along the boundary to no. 50 Worsley Road.

Second element of the application relates to the new temporary gravel access drive which is to serve plot 7, approved as a traditional detached dormer bungalow design providing three-bedroom accommodation with the majority of the accommodation being at ground floor. The approved plan also indicates a double garage.

8. The proposed temporary access to be a gravel drive varying in width from 3.1 metres minimum to 3.6 metres maximum having an approximate length of 66 metres to extend from the existing gated entrance as previously described at the end of the Women's Institute access and running the length of the existing boundary to no. 44 Worsley Road in a south easterly direction terminating at plot 7. This gravel access to be constructed in 50 mm gravel on 150 mm consolidated hard-core edged in 100 x 50 softwood edging. Proposal includes for a small turning head opposite the gated entrance and proposed plans indicate new timber gates to be provided at that entrance of the new tarmac access to the Women's Institute hall.

9. As previously referred to proposal involves the loss of an existing ash tree. However, again following negotiations, applicant has indicated a replacement ash tree to the south east with further areas of planting (four in all) in a mix of hawthorn and field maple, all four planting areas to be on the north eastern side of the proposed gravel drive.

10. Proposal provides for a new 2 metre high timber fence some 42 metres in length along the north eastern boundary to property 44 Worsley Road to be returned over a length of approximately 29 metres to the south east of 44 Worsley Road.

It is only the gravel access which is outside but adjacent to the Unitary Development Plan development envelope for Gurnard.

Members will note that there has been a considerable amount of objection to this proposal and in response the applicant has prepared a list of points which he considers Members should take into account and these are attached as an addendum to this report.

Applicant has also been requested to provide additional information as follows:

Applicant has advised the Women's Institute Committee that he will liaise with them regarding the timing of any heavy vehicles to ensure that they do not use the access during times which would cause problems to users of the hall.

The estimated heavy vehicles generated by this work are likely to be in the order of two cement lorries, one on each of two days; four general delivery vehicles, one for bricks one for the roof trusses and two for general building materials; one vehicle when the access is improved in width and surfaced with tarmac. The vehicle movements involved being over a two-month period i.e. one per week.

Applicant has made reference to a notice which has appeared on site advising all W.I. hall users with that notice making reference to "the above application will entail heavy lorries, cement mixers etc. using this narrow lane in order to build housing in the field at the back". Applicant is of the view that the use of the term "housing" is erroneous bearing in mind that the proposal is only to permit the construction of an approved single dwelling.

Other information provided by the applicant is summarised as follows:

Current situation in terms of the W.I. hall is that there is room to park about three cars. Applicant has offered to improve the parking capacity of the hall but this was declined by the Women's Institute.

The access presently has an effective width of 2.4 metres and the additional width now being proposed will adequately cater for the occasional owners and visitors car to the single dwelling and give greater protection to pedestrians than the present access.

Applicant having noted the Parish Council comments emphasized that the access is only to serve a single already approved dwelling and the traffic generation from it will be minimal. Applicant emphasises the increased width surfacing and lighting all of which he considers will be for the future long term benefit of users of the hall.

Planning Authority has full control over the removal of the length of access at the rear of no. 44 when no longer required and over the total number of dwellings it can serve.

Applicant claims that the new gravel temporary access drive being outside development envelope boundary will have no significant impact on the visual amenity of the area and will be removed in due course.

Applicant summarises this by stating that the benefits of the new access to the hall will in his opinion far outweigh any perceived disbenefits put forward as objections to the proposal.

Countryside and General Location policies apply to this proposal and some letter writers have referred to a general policy which seeks to ensure all development is retained within development envelope boundaries (Policy G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns & Villages). I would also refer to Policy C1 - Protection of the Landscape Character which is quoted as follows:

"Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area".

The main fears expressed and the reason why such a volume of representations has been received appears to me to be that approval of this gravel driveway will somehow lead to the residential development, outside the development envelope, at the valley area. I recognise Members' decision to apply the Condition No. 5 as quoted above in allowing Consent of the seven units in March 2001. This application in essence seeks in part to revert to the Condition which Officers suggested in respect of the previous Approval where it relates to the provision of the temporary gravel access serving just one plot with the second element of the application being the up-grading of the existing W.I. access as opposed to providing a fully adopted cul-de-sac road as indicated on the previous Approval.

Following this assessment of the issues the main considerations are two-fold.

In terms of the improvements to the access Members will note all the concerns which are being expressed by Gurnard residents particularly the users of the Women's Institute hall. These concerns are obviously acknowledged, however, Members will need to make up their own minds as to whether or not the improvements albeit being proposed to provide a reasonable level of access to the proposed approved dwelling represent an overall improvement to the benefit of all users of this access. A site inspection clearly indicates that the existing access has a very limited usable width no more than that which would be capable of serving a single dwelling let alone the hall. The access is poorly surfaced, contains no lighting and is being encroached upon by nearby hedging. It is accepted that it is functioned in this form for several decades but given the current awareness of safety etc. it certainly would not be deemed to be a safe access for young or old people to use, particularly during the darker evenings.

It may be thought surprising that the widening, the tarmacing and the late provision of lighting is not being welcomed by users of that access to the Women's Institute hall.

Although use of the access would be shared between the hall and the dwelling, the proportion of traffic generated by the dwelling would be minimal and indeed on its own would not probably require the access to be upgraded. The Highways Engineer suggests only that a condition requiring that the dwelling is not occupied until the access has been constructed.

Second concern regarding the effect and disturbance that would be caused by construction vehicles is a matter of fact. All building works cause disturbance in the short term, a factor which is inevitable. The information provided by the applicant clearly indicates that he accepts this and will do all in his power to ensure that such a disturbance is kept to a minimum. I have no reason to believe that this will not occur and certainly could not be cited as a reason to refuse the application.

It is noted that some residents consider that a footpath should be provided separate from a vehicular access. In this regard the proposal sees the access as a shared surface between pedestrians and vehicles. Such an approach is not unreasonable given the likely level of traffic which is to be generated along this access road and would equate to a shared surface cul-de-sac which are and have been constructed throughout the Island under the Design Bulletin 32 document and have proved to be extremely safe accesses with level of accidents being virtually zero. The narrow width of the access i.e. 3.7 metres is traffic calming in itself and in any event the length of 3.7 metre width is minimal. Also the 3.7 metre width would enable a vehicle to pass down the access and still retain a metre width or just under for pedestrian traffic. This is a situation which does not exist at the moment where pedestrians and vehicles have to share the same uneven surface to gain access to the hall.

Given the above assessment I am of the view that failure to provide separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic could not be sustained as a reason to refuse the application. Indeed the dangers of refusing the application on unsustainable grounds is that if an Appeal were lodged and was successful, the opportunity to apply a number of Conditions requiring the applicant to provide the additional benefits of additional width for metalled surface treatment and lighting could be lost.

Second issue relates to the encroachment of the temporary access beyond the development envelope boundary and whether or not this represents unacceptable development in the countryside. First issue to consider in this respect is the principle and whether it would lead to a precedent for other proposals to come forward in this area. Firstly, experienced Members will be aware that this area between Baring Road and Worsley Road known as the Jordan valley has almost been sacrosanct in terms of ensuring it remains outside development envelope boundaries and undeveloped. This area is paramount in the basic strategy to keep Gurnard and Cowes apart and therefore allow Gurnard to retain its own integrity separate from Cowes. I have no reason to believe that this policy will not continue to be strongly applied and in this regard it is important to appreciate that the seven dwellings approved including the one to which this access is required are all inside the development envelope boundary and do not encroach on this area. The approval of this application will not in my view set any precedent for further development outside the development envelope.

The area itself is deemed to be countryside and the Consent for the access is required because it is to serve a residential dwelling as opposed to being required for any agricultural purpose. Indeed the regulations, because the overall area is between 0.4 and 5 hectares, would mean that a gravel access for the sole purposes of serving an agricultural purpose could be laid without the need to obtain any Planning Consent being permitted under the regulations.

It is necessary therefore to assess the visual impact of this gravel access. In relation to the overall field the access itself takes up a very small percentage of the overall area and will have very little, if any, visual impact on the overall landscape. I therefore consider that it would be difficult to sustain as a reason for refusal visual impact arguments. Such a stance is further reinforced by the applicants proposal to provide additional planting of native species in groups which will further screen if screening is required at all, with such landscape planting contributing to the visual amenities of the area.

I acknowledge that the length of time the temporary access will be in place is an unknown quantity or it appears to depend upon the vacation of the existing property 44 Worsley Road and its subsequent demolition to enable for the adoptable cul-de-sac to be constructed in accordance with the approval of March 2001. I do not necessarily consider this to be an overriding issue. If Members are mindful to approve the application it can be adequately conditioned that its continued use shall only relate to providing vehicular and pedestrian access to plot 7 and no other dwellings and a further condition can be applied to ensure its stopping up and removal upon completion of a more appropriate access built to an adoptable standard to the southwest as part of the larger approved development. Obviously that access could either take the form of the approved development of March 2001 which is a detailed Consent and has a 5-year life, or if the landowner chose to make a further application for a different form of development that would need to ensure any access arrangements allowed for the servicing of plot 7 as part of its arrangement.

All in all I consider the Planning Authority can exercise control over this particular issue by way of condition with those conditions applying as and when circumstances change to allow that to happen. Meanwhile, this proposal enables beneficial alterations to take place in respect of the existing access off Worsley Road to the Women's Institute hall although I recognise that Gurnard residents and some users of that hall would not agree with that approach.

With regard to any other issues at the time the previous application was being processed the overall area was thoroughly investigated by the Council's Countryside section, Wight Squirrel Project and Wight Wildlife, all of which indicated that the level of wildlife habitation particularly in respect of protected species was insufficient to warrant a refusal of the application. In any event, the proposal by the applicants to carry out the planting of native species with particular reference to the replacement of the ash tree would in itself provide and hopefully attract wildlife habitat.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report including the decision to impose condition 5 on the approval for development of the site, I consider both elements of this proposal i.e. improved access to Institute hall and temporary gravel access to be acceptable subject to Conditions. With regard to the application of Conditions these have been worded to ensure all the various proposals will be put into place within a certain time period. I also recommend a second Condition advising that the management of construction vehicles be carefully considered to ensure there is no conflict with users of the Institute hall and that during the improvement works to the access itself every effort is made to ensure minimal disturbance to users of the access, particularly pedestrian, and that as far as possible at least pedestrian access is maintained at all times and any interruption in the use of the access for vehicular purposes is kept to an absolute minimum. In this regard Members will note that the levels of construction traffic as specified by the applicant are in any event of a minimal nature and provided this level is adhered to should cause very limited disturbance and interruption to the use of the access.

1. Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No work shall commence on the provision of the temporary gravel drive until the construction works have been completed enabling the existing access to the Women's Institute Hall to be widened to 3.7 metres in width has been completed to wearing course level as indicated on applicant's drawing no. 9946/ST/02. Such completion shall include for the provision of three PIR lighting facilities and the erection of a 2 metre high fence in place of the existing hedge, all as indicated on the above mentioned drawing no. Reason: In the interests of providing an improved and safe access to all users of the Women's Institute Hall.
3	Only after completion of the works mentioned in condition 2 above, shall work commence on the temporary gravel drive shown to serve the approved dwelling on plot 7 and that work shall be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling on plot 7. Such temporary gravel drive shall be stopped up and abandoned on the provision and completion of a permanent highway access to adoptable standard accessed off Worsley Road to serve future residential development of the curtilage of 44 Worsley Road. Reason: To ensure adequate access to an overall proposed development in compliance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Within the first available planting season, tree and landscaping proposals as indicated on applicant's drawing no. 9946/ST/01/B shall be carried out with those proposals included for a replacement ash tree as indicated on that plan. Any trees or shrubs which are removed, uprooted or destroyed or die shall be replaced with trees and shrubs of similar size and species within five years. Reason: To ensure an appropriate standard of visual screening is provided in compliance with Policy D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to occupation of the dwelling on plot 7, the 2 metre high timber fence as indicated on the applicant's drawing no. 9946/ST/01B to the north east and south east of no. 44 Worsley Road shall be erected in the form of a close boarded fence and such fence shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupier of 44 Worsley Road.

2. Recommendation - That a letter be sent to the applicants requesting that they give serious consideration to management of construction traffic to ensure least disturbance to users of the Women's Institute Hall and that at all times they be strongly advised to ensure at least pedestrian access is provided to that hall when required.

13.	TCP/02796/B P/01854/01 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth Registration Date: 30/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Detached house & garage land adjacent Netherby, Main Road, Bouldnor, Yarmouth, PO41

Representations

Shalfleet Parish Council Members have carried out a site inspection and consider that, although the design of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the locality, the building is far too large for the plot and would result in over-development.

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

Evaluation

Application relates to roughly rectangular shaped area of land on southern side of Bouldnor Road, opposite Viewpoint car park. Site forms part of curtilage to adjoining property which was previously arranged as two separate units of accommodation and was recently converted to a single dwelling.

Planning permission is sought for detached house and garage to be accessed over tarmac driveway running alongside eastern boundary of site, off Bouldnor Road.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether proposed dwelling is of an appropriate size, scale and design, in keeping with neighbouring properties or would result in over-development of site.

Site is shown on IW Unitary Development Plan to be outside development envelope for Yarmouth area. Relevant Policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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

G1 - Development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes. Land outside these boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development. Planning applications for new development will be permitted where they comply with the criteria set out in the policy which, in general, seek to protect the environment and character of the area.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy provides details of proposals which may exceptionally be permitted outside defined settlements.

D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Applications will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy.

H9 - Policy provides exceptions where development may be permitted outside development envelopes, including the acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage or group of houses.

Proposed dwelling would provide accommodation comprising kitchen, utility room, dining room and three bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom at ground floor level with lounge and master bedroom, with en-suite facilities and study/dressing room at first floor level. Design of dwelling reflects general appearance of property to west and when viewed from the main road would be similar in scale and mass. However, the existing property to the west has a significantly larger foot print. Property to east of application site forms part of St. Swithins Crescent's development and is more modern in design.

Site is accessed over private tarmac drive running alongside and parallel to eastern boundary and presently serves existing garage to property and adjacent dwelling to rear of site. Eastern boundary towards rear of site is defined by line of conifer trees which are of little merit and I do not consider that their loss would justify refusal of planning permission. However, should Members be minded to approve application, I consider that permission should be subject to a requirement that landscaping of the site is carried out to include planting of replacement trees of an appropriate species along the eastern boundary. Plan also indicates that sycamore tree adjacent eastern boundary of site may be removed, although final decision in this respect would be made on site after removal of stumps and roots of adjacent Leylandii trees.

Site has width of approximately 15.5 metres and maximum depth of approximately 37 metres. Curtilage of adjacent property extends in front of plot and site does not therefore have direct frontage on to Bouldnor Road. Proposed dwelling would follow similar building line to properties either side and I am satisfied that adequate space will be maintained between properties and that proposal will not result in a cramped appearance. Plot size is not dissimilar to other residential properties in the general locality and I am satisfied that adequate amenity area would be provided for a dwelling of this size. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal would constitute over development.

Whilst site is located outside development envelope, it is located in a continuous run of dwellings presenting a built-up frontage on to Bouldnor Road. A similar plot on a site some 65 metres to the west was permitted in 1988. Therefore, in this instance, I am satisfied that proposal represents acceptable infilling in accordance with Policy H9 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that size, scale and design of dwelling is in keeping with locality and will not detract from character of area or amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with Policies contained in the IW Unitary Development Plan and I therefore recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
5	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include planting of replacement trees along the eastern boundary and shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The landscaping scheme shall be completed within six months from the substantial completion of the dwelling or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first five years shall be replaced during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is completed in the interests of the appearance of the development and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red/blue on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from the site prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

14.	TCP/04530/M P/01942/01 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton Registration Date: 07/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Formation of additional vehicular access adjacent Lifeboat Station Promenade Flats, Afton Down, Freshwater, PO40

Representations

Freshwater Parish Council object on grounds that this is another exit onto what is already a dangerous road. The Parish Council ask that it is noted that when planning permission was originally applied for, this access was not part of the plans. they also comment that this is an entrance used by emergency services and it is essential the area is kept clear at all times. They point out that there is a public car park adjacent the flats which is available for use.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Freshwater Bay Residents' Association raise concerns regarding the safety of the access. They comment that access will be opposite a main junction and the current speed limit is 40 mph. They therefore request that traffic implications are carefully considered, as it may create an accident black spot, being close to a busy junction. They also request that consideration is given to reducing the speed limit to 30 mph.

Two letters received from local residents expressing concern with regard to retrospective nature of application and objecting to proposal on the following grounds:

Two access points already exist - are these authorised.

Access would create hazard for highway users due to gradient and alignment of road and proximity to other access points and road junctions.

Objectors suggest that Committee should carry out a site inspection before determining the application.

Evaluation

Application relates to residential development on site of former Promenade Flats located on southern side of Military Road adjacent Life Boat Station and virtually opposite junction with Afton Road.

Planning permission was granted in March 2000 for demolition of the existing building and garages and construction of a block of eleven flats with garages and parking area. This proposal involved creation of a new access onto Military Road roughly central in frontage of site. Previous building within site was served by access located further to east and it was a requirement of the planning permission for redevelopment of the site that this access is stopped-up and abandoned and any footway/verge crossing reinstated on completion of the new access. The new access in the frontage of the site was required to serve a block of seven garages located adjacent eastern boundary of site. Planning permission was subsequently granted to increase number of garages adjacent eastern boundary to nine in a single block. In addition, original scheme included provision of small parking area with two garages located in north western corner of site with access being gained over forecourt/parking area to adjacent lifeboat station.

Current application seeks planning permission for creation of additional access to serve the small parking area in northwestern corner of site and two garages at lower ground floor level within building. Creation of additional access would obviate need for vehicles entering and leaving site to use access to adjacent Life Boat Station and would result in total of two accesses serving the development.

Determining factors in considering current application are whether the creation and use of an additional access as proposed would be acceptable in terms of highway safety or would add unduly to the hazards of highway users.

Site is shown on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be outside development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast and a wild bird sanctuary. Site is located to west of and adjacent a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Current proposal represents relatively minor form of development and relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy which, of particular relevance to current submission seeks to ensure that proposals provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public, including the disabled.

TR7 - Planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of appropriate matters relating to highway safety, as specified in the policy. In particular, the policy requires that any new road layout, including vehicular access, road junctions and crossing points are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.

Road in front of application site and to east is relatively straight rising quite steeply to Afton Down whilst to west road follows series of bends between site and western side of the bay. Notwithstanding the alignment and gradient of the road, visibility from the access would be acceptable in both directions.

Main access to the development is located further to east which would serve parking area and nine garages located adjacent eastern boundary of site. Access, the subject of this application, is required to serve a small parking area and two garages located on western side of site and due to changes in level through site, vehicles would be unable to gain access to parking area and garages on eastern side of property. Having regard to these factors, I consider that formation and use of access is likely to generate limited number of vehicle movements and will not cause significant conflict with other access points or junctions. Parish Council suggests that access is used by emergency vehicles, but the proposed access would be located approximately 10 metres to east of access to Life Boat Station which was under the approved plan proposed to serve part of the development. Bearing in mind the views of the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that proposal represents a significant change in terms of highway safety matters. With regard to comments of Freshwater Bay Residents Association requesting that consideration is given to reducing speed limits, this would be dealt with by the Highways Traffic Section in consultation with the Police and is not a matter for consideration by this Committee.

With regard to objector's comments relating to retrospective nature of application, I would advise Members that whilst a boundary wall and brick piers have been constructed on the roadside boundary of the site defining the position of the access, no dropped kerb or pavement crossing had been constructed at the time of a site inspection carried out by one of my officers.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that formation and use of an access in this position will not add unduly to hazards of highway users. I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I therefore recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior the access being brought into use, visibility splays of x = 2 metres and y = 120 metres dimension shall be constructed prior to commencement of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
3	The access and crossing of the highway verge and/or footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for (light/heavy) vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The development shall not be brought into use until parking spaces are marked out, a turning space is provided and clearly identified within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This space shall thereafter always be kept available for such use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

15.

TCPL/05528/K P/01236/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North Registration Date: 19/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr L Byrne Tel: (01983) 823577 Retention of canopy on front elevation; retention of covered yard area forming toilet facilities and store; retention of extraction vent 9, St. Thomas Square, Newport, PO301SN

See joint report on application no. LBC/5528L/P1237/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extraction vent, because of its size and design, would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the listed building and would therefore be contrary to Policies B1 and B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposed extraction vent, by reason of its position, size, mass, design and appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings, as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality and would also be contrary to Policies D1, Section H and I of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The quantitative assessment carried out by the Environmental Health Department confirms that the noise being generated by the operation of the kitchen extraction equipment La Casa Fiesta is causing a noise nuisance and would therefore be contrary to Policies D1, Section H and P1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

16.

LBC/05528/L P/01237/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Newport North Registration Date: 19/10/2001 - Listed Building Consent Officer: Mr L Byrne Tel: (01983) 823577 LBC for retention of canopy on front elevation; retention of covered yard area forming toilet facilities & store; retention of extraction vent 9, St. Thomas Square, Newport, PO301SN

Representations

Environmental Health comment that "the noise being generated by the operation of the kitchen extraction equipment at La Casa Fiesta is causing a noise nuisance". In respect of odour, "it has not been possible to fully evaluate the impact �.. on the neighbouring residential properties, and therefore no judgement can be given".

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

The Architectural and Crime Liaison Officer comments that from details submitted access has been improved, but also states there could be a lot of conjecture as to whether this gives a burglar an easier exit. These comments are discussed later on in the report.

Evaluation

Full planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the retention of the canopy on the front elevation, retention of covered yard area forming toilet facilities and store and the retention of the extraction vent. The canopy, positioned over the ground floor front elevation, has a metal retractable frame, constructed from canvas in a light brown finish. The covered yard area is of single-storey height, incorporating a square skylight and finished with timber decking. The extraction vent, positioned on the plane of a small pitched roof of a two-storey building is situated at the rear of the property, facing the County Press building.

9 St. Thomas Square is a Grade II Listed building believed to date from the 18th century. No. 9 and 10 have separate ground floor shops but are one building with a Stucco finish. At the rear of the property there appears to be some later additions at ground and first floor level. The building itself is situated in St. Thomas Square, Newport, opposite the Grade I Church of St. Thomas. St. Thomas Square is within the Newport conservation area and both no. 8 and 10 St. Thomas Square are Grade II Listed Buildings.

In December 1998, planning permission was granted for the change of use of ground floor from retail to consumption and sale of hot food, and planning and listed building consent were granted for a new shop front. A condition attached to the planning permissions was that this permission shall authorise the use of the premises as a restaurant and take-away of a low odour/low grease food category unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The reason for this condition was in the interest of the amenities of the adjoining properties because the preparation and sale of food of a higher category of odour and/or grease content at the premises would, in the absence of details of installed ventilation and extraction equipment, adversely affect the amenities of the adjacent properties.

Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan (Standards of Design), expects applications to show a good quality of design, should not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings and should not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site.

Policy B1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan, indicates alterations and extensions affecting Listed Buildings and their curtilages will be approved provided the scheme: "is in accordance with the period, style, plan, scale, detail and material of the existing building or structure and takes regard of the archaeology of the building and its setting".

Policy B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan states that "proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or the curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted".

Policy P1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan states that:

"Before granting planning permission for development which may have the potential for causing pollution, the Council will wish to be satisfied that the chosen location, site and proposed operation, together with any protection measures, will avoid adverse effects on the use of land and the environment."

A letter of objection has been received from the neighbouring property in respect of the covered yard, unless conditions are applied "to ensure there is no use of the flat roofed area for the siting of refrigerators and freezers, etc; nor any form of access onto it". The flat roof with its decking is also believed to provide a means of an authorised access to the rear of no. 8 St. Thomas Square, Newport. This is considered to constitute a threat to the security of the premises. The extraction vent is considered to cause disturbance due to noise, fumes and vibration through the party wall between the two properties.

In addressing the objection, if Members were minded to approve the application a condition restricting the use of the flat roof as a balcony or for the storage of refuse or other equipment could be imposed. In respect of the flat roof, the Local Authority Architectural & Crime Liaison Officer believes that access has been improved giving a prospective burglar an easier exit and possible "base" for taking away larger items than was previously possible. Members should be aware that there was an existing 2 metre section of flat roof adjacent the boundary wall and that the new flat roof provides another 3 metre section. The Architectural & Crime Liaison Officer continues saying that there could be a lot conjecture as to whether this gives a burglar an easier exit, but the structures that abut the boundary wall in the County Press have made access to the rear of the properties easier. In respect of the extraction vent, Environmental Health have confirmed there is a noise nuisance, although the odour levels could not be measured because the premises were not operating at that time. In respect of the Listed status of the building, the extraction vent is still considered to be detrimental to the appearance and setting of the Listed Buildings.

During a site visit on 6 November 2001 the applicant was advised that the retention of the extraction flue was likely to warrant a refusal due to its impact upon the Listed Building and the neighbouring property. With this information the applicant arranged a further meeting, again on site in the presence of an Environmental Health Officer, Planning Officer, Conservation Assistant, an extraction vent Consultant and two Solicitors. As a result it was suggested the applicant submit details prior to the submission of a revised scheme for further consideration by the Conservation Assistant and the Environmental Health Officer.

A sketch was submitted which did address the adverse affect of the visual amenity of the neighbours of no. 8 St. Thomas Square by reducing the height of the vent, but still the overall size, especially the width of the proposal was still considered to be detrimental to the appearance and setting of the Listed Building. Environmental Health also believe the suggestion of incorporating a 90 degree bend at the top of the existing vent to direct the flue gases towards the County Press offices, was not acceptable and further commented that "this department would prefer the final termination to be vertical with no impingement to the final discharge of flue gasses".

The applicant was given a further opportunity to submit a revised scheme to address both Planning and Environmental Health requirements. A further sketch was submitted for consideration but it was considered the scheme still reflected a structure that would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building.

Reasons for Recommendations

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the canopy positioned over the ground floor front elevation is not considered to have an adverse impact upon the Listed Building and therefore conforms to Policies B1 and B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. In respect of the covered yard area, this is considered to comply with both Listed Building (Policy B1, B2) and Planning policies (D1 Section H and I) of the IW Unitary Development Plan and could be sufficiently conditioned to prevent use of the flat roof as a balcony or storage area which would also reflect the Architectural Liaison Officer's concerns. The extraction vent is believed to appear as a discordant feature which adversely affects the appearance and setting of the Listed Building and is detrimental to the amenity of the area. Therefore, the extraction vent does not conform to Policies D1 (H) or B1 and B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. In respect of Environmental Health, the extraction vent is considered to cause a noise nuisance which is contrary to Policy P1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

In view of the above, I proposed a second recommendation seeking the authorisation of enforcement action for the removal of the unauthorised extraction vent.

Recommendation - Refusal (both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extraction vent, because of its size and design, would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the listed building and would therefore be contrary to Policies B1 and B2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	The proposed extraction vent, by reason of its position, size, mass, design and appearance would be intrusive, out of scale and character with this and neighbouring dwellings, as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities of the locality and would also be contrary to Policies D1, Section H and I of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The quantitative assessment carried out by the Environmental Health Department confirms that the noise being generated by the operation of the kitchen extraction equipment La Casa Fiesta is causing a noise nuisance and would therefore be contrary to Policies D1, Section H and P1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

17.

TCP/06689/K P/01712/01 Parish/Name: Seaview Ward: Seaview & Nettlestone Registration Date: 23/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Alterations and change of use of dwelling and garden to form additional dining area on ground floor and owner's flat on 1st and 2nd floors for Roadside Inn including use of rear garden in connection with public house Roadside Inn and Upton View, Nettlestone Green, Seaview, PO34

Representations

Parish Council approve expansion of business after such a chequered career over the last few years.

Highway Engineer does not wish to comment on application.

Letters received from four local residents expressing concern regarding various aspects to proposal with contents summarised below:

The submitted details do not clearly indicate the context of The Roadside Inn in connection with the adjacent houses and gardens.

The rear attic window is largely out of proportion and character to the architectural style of Upton View and proposals are a threat to privacy of adjacent garden.

Owner of adjacent property comments that rear garden is presently secluded and surrounded by other residential properties and proposed extension of garden of public house at the rear would result in provision of seating, table areas and outside play areas close to the boundary creating possible noise nuisance over seven days of the week and across licensing hours.

No indication is given regarding front garden area of Upton View, but if french windows are used as access points, this would also increase noise at front of property.

There has been late night disturbance in the past as a result of drunken and noisy behaviour from people leaving The Roadside and would not want this to happen on the doorstep.

Any external lighting would be a distraction to residential properties late at night.

Concern expressed regarding extension to enlarge children's playground as residents have already experienced the screaming of young children into the late evening as well as loud music played by the previous owners. As playground would back onto neighbouring properties, this should not be allowed.

Concern expressed regarding loss of residential unit as there is presently a great problem with homelessness on the Island especially for young couples and first time buyers.

Evaluation

This application relates to The Roadside Inn and to the adjoining residential unit known as Upton View which, as Members will be aware, is an established public house and parking/garden area with a small residential unit situated to the north. The properties are located on the eastern side of the village road to the south of Nettlestone Green itself. The area is generally characterised by established residential development with some small commercial properties in the area. The public house itself is well established, although it has been the subject of previous applications for change of use and redevelopment. There is a substantial car parking area to the south and garden areas to the rear (east).

The application now under consideration relates to internal alterations to the public house itself together with the residential property to the north (Upton View) to incorporate the ground floor accommodation as an extended dining area and disabled WC accommodation for the public house with a separate access to the first and second floors to provide a self-contained living unit, including construction of dormer windows in the existing roof. The applicant's agent has indicated that this living accommodation would be used in connection with the public house itself, either for a manager, or as holiday accommodation.

The submitted details also indicate the rear garden of Upton View would be incorporated within the garden to the public house with some sitting out areas and a children's play area. Doors at the front of Upton View would be used in connection with The Roadside Inn and a separate access to the existing front door for the residential flat.

Following concerns raised by local residents, revised plans and details have been submitted by the applicant's agent which show additional screening to the boundaries with the gardens of nearby residential properties and reduced outside seating area in connection with the public house, together with the location of the proposed play area to a position close to the rear boundary adjacent to the garage of the adjacent residential premises. A covering letter submitted with these details indicates that his client understands the concerns of local residents and has agreed to increase the garden screening to allow the hedgerow to increase from its present 2 metre width to 3.5 metres. It is also proposed to relocate the children's play area as indicated on the revised plans and it is confirmed that play equipment would consist of a sand pit with a boat to play on and two or three smaller pieces of equipment which would either rock or swing. Eternal lighting would be limited to two low level discreet external lights to light the ground around the seating area which are extensions of the existing lighting arrangements.

With regard to the proposed dormer window, the agent indicates that the proportions of this have been taken from existing examples and the size would allow more habitable space within the building itself with no additional overlooking. There are already two large openings on the side of Upton View which provide a direct view into the neighbouring property. The accommodation has been designed to ensure any overlooking is minimised.

It is also confirmed that the intended use of the residential unit above the proposed dining area would be for an owner/manager or to provide holiday accommodation or to become an extension of the existing bed and breakfast facility that is already offered by the inn.

Members are advised that local residents have been notified of the revised details and any further comments will be reported. In addition, a copy of the application details has been sent to the Environmental Health Officer and any further comments will also be reported at the meeting.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details now under consideration would upgrade and improve the existing facilities within The Roadside Inn and therefore help to maintain its future viability. Whilst concerns raised by local residents are noted, the revised plans would significantly reduce the impact of the proposals on adjoining properties and, subject to imposition of suitable conditions to control any external lighting and play equipment, I consider the proposals to be acceptable in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy D1 and therefore recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The occupation of the residential accommodation in 'Upton View' shall be limited to a person employed at or visiting the business known as 'The Roadside Inn' or any residents dependants. Reason: The unit of accommodation s not in a satisfactory position in relation to the existing business to be occupied separately from the main property in accordance with the requirements of Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use hereby permitted commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No children's play equipment or other similar structures shall be installed within the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Such details to include location, size and type of apparatus, together with any ancillary surfacing, fencing or lighting. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of existing residential properties in accordance with IW Unitary Development Plan Policy D1.
6	Details of the means of extraction of fumes and smells from that part of the premises formerly known as 'Upton View' shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use hereby approved is commenced. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The flat hereby approved shall not be sold off or leased separately but shall be retained in one ownership with the property known as 'The Roadside Inn' unless the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained. Reason: The accommodation is not of a satisfactory standard or in a position in relation to the main premises to be occupied separately from the main property in accordance with the requirements of Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first three years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

18.	TCP/07310/J P/01875/01 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South Registration Date: 19/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 2 bungalows with integral garages; formation of vehicular accessland rear of Burntwood and 115, Howgate Road, Bembridge, PO35

Representations

Bembridge Parish Council recommend approval, but query whether area on east side of site should be open/landscaped area.

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of overdevelopment of the site, inadequate parking, visual intrusion, loss of privacy and overlooking, loss of trees and inappropriate form of development. That the development forms a backland development situation, inadequate plot sizes and inappropriate siting; inadequate area for landscaping and would urbanise the area; providing accommodation which would unbalance the age structure of the population, lessening future choice of large houses, thereby putting pressure on green field sites and precedent, suggesting that a site inspection should be made.

Evaluation

In May 2001 planning permission was granted for eight bungalows and garage, for the formation of a vehicular access and access road in this 'L' shaped site located on the north west side of Howgate Road, a piece of ground between those properties fronting Howgate Road and the bungalows of Wavesound Close and Copse Butt. The development of the site has commenced with three of the eight dwellings being substantially commenced and Members may recall that the development was approved with the access road coming in from Howgate Road and swinging westwards running along and almost abutting the southern boundary of the site leading to a turning head near its western extent.

This site comprises an area of land with overall dimensions of 36 metres by 20 metres situated on the bend and running along on the south side of the access road. It is formed by the acquisition of the two rear most parts of two properties fronting Howgate Road, together with part of the existing site at the bend in the new access road.

It is proposed to erect two dwellings of similar design to those currently being developed and results in dwellings with 6 metre rear gardens situated approximately 4 metres back from the new highway. The plan shows there to be 18 metres between the rear faces of one of the dwellings and the existing property in Howgate Road and a distance of 25 metres between the second plot and the existing dwelling in Howgate Road.

This proposed development is an anticipated continuation of the development approved in May. Residential properties are now arranged around a small cul-de-sac road resulting in the addition of two bungalows making a total of ten and at a density and layout which is consistent with the approved development. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a further three or four dwellings may eventually be carried out on the remaining section of the road's frontage with the southern boundary of the former site.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, density, effect on adjoining properties and adequacy of drainage.

As with the previous development, the land presently forms part of the curtilage of existing residential properties and could be described as 'under used land', a form of brown field site, but still one located within the development envelope and surrounded by residential property. There is no objection in principle to residential development as proposed and indeed it is the Council's and national policy to utilise land more economically, increasing densities as appropriate. The density of the resultant development will be marginally increased, but at a density compatible with surrounding development, especially Howgate Close, Copse Butt and Wavesound Close abutting the east and northern boundaries of the former site. Plot sizes are compatible and therefore densities are at a similar level to the continuing development.

In term of effect on adjoining properties, three dwellings may be affected, those properties adjoining the rear and western side boundaries of the application site. However, the distances of 18-25 metres and in the case of the westernmost adjoining property of 28 metres is unlikely to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy since the substantial distances exist and the properties proposed are bungalows. It is likely that separating fences will give adequate levels of privacy.

At the time the previous permission for the eight dwellings on the original site was approved, the matter of drainage was closely investigated due to the fact that some flooding had occurred in the vicinity at times of heavy rain etc. Southern Water have confirmed that two additional dwellings serve by the system presently being installed and its connection to the main sewer will not overload the existing regime.

Turning to the nature of objections received, these essentially spring from a suggestion that the development is at an excessive density, ie that the land should not absorb further residential development. PPG3 advises Local Planning Authorities to utilise land more economically where they have adequate access and result in a satisfactory layout by utilising under-used land or land which has previously been developed, ie brown field sites. This particular area of Howgate Road comprises large properties in very large sites and although the development would take some of the rear gardens of these properties, the resultant development would be discreet since it would not have a significant impact on the street scene visible from Howgate Road. Utilising such land more economically will reduce the pressure on green field sites for further development and I do not accept that utilisation of some of the garden land of such large properties would result in pressure on green field sites to develop large properties in the countryside. Such proposals would be subject to substantiated constraint policies.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of an additional two dwellings on this continuing development will result in a greater economy of utilisation of land within a development envelope in line with planning policy guidance and Policies D1, D2 and H5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Details of hard and soft landscaping - M10
4	Boundary details - M33
5	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no development of the types mentioned in Schedule 2, Part 2, Classes A and B of the Order shall be carried out between the back of the footpath and the screen fences/walls or between the back of the footpath and the forward most part of the dwellings, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
7	Provision of parking/loading/turning - K03
8	Details of roads, etc, design and construction - J01
9	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Before any development commences in connection with this consent, a comprehensive levels survey to show existing and proposed finished ground levels, floor levels of the dwellings, ground levels and floor levels of the adjoining residential properties in Howgate Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the agreed finished levels. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies D1 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
11	Before any development commences a site, a scheme to show how surface and foul water is to be adequately drained from the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be completed and operative before any of the dwellings are occupied. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage and surface water disposal is provided for the development.

19.

TCPL/10923/B P/01008/01 Parish/Name: Brighstone Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 07/06/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Demolition of flat roof extension; 2 storey extension to enlarge accommodation Priors Cottage, Main Road, Brighstone, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO304AH

See joint report on application no. LBC/10923C/P1095/01.

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension because of its size, design, and use of materials would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the Listed Building and would therefore be contrary to Policies B1, D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and would conflict with guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.
2	The site is within a designated Conservation Area and the proposal because of its scale, design and use of materials would conflict the Local Planning Authority's intention to protect and enhance the character and amenities of such areas and would therefore be contrary to Policies B6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.

Representations

Parish Council commented in respect of originally submitted plans that they could see no reason for refusal as the garden is large enough to accommodate an extension which is two storey and the roof tiles chosen would blend with the current development in the former tea gardens next door. As the property is Listed the front would not be altered and the extension appears to be in keeping with the existing character of the cottage.

Highway Engineer indicates that there are no highway implications.

Letter received from Island Watch objecting to application and whilst agreeing that the existing extension is pretty dismal the proposed replacement is excessively large and inappropriate on a Listed Building.

Members are advised that as a result of negotiations, revised plans have been submitted with a copy sent to the Parish Council. If any further comments area received they will be reported.

Evaluation

This application relates to a detached stone and thatched house situated on the northern side of the main road in the centre of Brighstone village. The dwelling is set back from the road frontage with a long front garden and is a traditional two storey structure with stone elevations under a thatched roof with curved eaves above the first floor windows and a small thatch porch on the front. There is a smaller two storey extension on the western side with a further lean-to single storey garage close to the western boundary. The rear of the cottage comprises a long 'cat slide' thatched roof with a very low eaves with a small later extension at the western side which is partly flat roofed linking to a small gabled out house. There is a substantial rear garden which rises in level to the rear.

The site to the west is currently being developed with residential properties of traditional design on the site of the former tea gardens whilst there is a small thatched cottage to the east.

The building is Listed Grade II and retains much of its original fabric and appearance. The building is also situated within the designated Conservation Area and is considered to be an important part of the traditional village character.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 contains advice regarding planning and the historic environment and advice contained in Annex C relates to alterations to Listed Buildings and indicates that extensions should not dominate the existing building in either scale, material or situation. It also indicates that the roof is nearly always a dominant feature of a building and retention of its original structure, shape, pitch, cladding and ornament is important. Thatched roofs should be preserved. Government advice is also reflected in Unitary Development Plan Policies B1 Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings and B6 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas as well as policies D1 (Design) and H7 (Extension and Alterations of Existing Properties).

The originally submitted plans showed demolition of the existing outbuilding and flat roofed link structure, together with a significant part of the rear lean-to structure and thatched roof at the rear of the property, and construction of a two storey extension comprising two gabled wings, with a valley gutter between and also incorporating red tiled roofs, together with a gabled dormer in the western elevation and stone elevations with red brick detailing. These details did not show any alterations to the front (southern) elevation facing the road.

Members are advised that although the proposed extension would be located at the rear of the property, concerns were expressed regarding the size and design of the extension which would have resulted in the loss of the majority of the rear thatched roof which is considered an important part of the historic character and fabric of the Listed Building as it comprises an uninterrupted thatched roof with very low eaves over the single storey lean-to. The proposed extension would have comprised two additional first floor bedrooms within gabled roofs at the rear of the property resulting in the new extension dominating the back of the property in addition to concerns regarding the loss of the historic fabric as outlined above.

Notwithstanding comments made by the Parish Council, I am concerned that the extensive use of red tiles for the extension would not have reflected the original character and appearance of this building which is dominated by the thatch roof and this is considered to be an integral part of the character of the property. In addition, the use of dormers windows and roof lights were not considered characteristic of this building and would be more in keeping with the modern development on the adjoining site.

Following negotiations, revised plans have been submitted showing a redesign of the proposed extension which would be relocated closer to the western boundary thereby retaining a larger part of the thatch roof at the rear of the property. The revised proposal do however include a two storey extension at the front of the property including reconstruction of the existing lean-to garage with accommodation above contained under an extension to the existing thatched roof.

Although the revised details do address some of the concerns, in particular by retaining a large part of the lean-to thatch roof at the rear of the property, I am still concerned regarding the scale and design of the extension which would not be dissimilar to that previously submitted incorporating a double gabled roof with red clay tile finish. The revised details also include a substantial flat roofed element in the centre although this would not be particularly visible as it would be surrounded by tiled pitches. The revised proposal has also omitted the dormer window although a number of traditional style roof lights are still included.

The proposed extension at the front of the property is also of concern as it would significantly increase the visual impact of the side element competing with the dominance of the front elevation of the original building. Although this part of the extension would have a thatched roof finish, and reflect design characteristics of the existing building, I am of the opinion that it would be over dominant and adversely effect the appearance of the front of this Listed Building in the street scene.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details are now under consideration show an extension of excessive scale and mass with inappropriate use of materials, incorporating a large first floor element partially contained under a flat roof which would be inappropriate in terms of scale, mass and design on this Listed Building. In addition, I am concerned that the alterations to the front of the property including an additional first floor element at the western side would spoil the dominance of the main elevation of the original building and would be visually dominant and inappropriate.

Although the revised proposals have partially overcome previous concerns in respect of the originally submitted plans, I am still concerned that the scale and design of the extension would be unduly intrusive and inappropriate in respect of this attractive Listed Building. In particular, the use of extensive tiled roofs with double gable feature, would introduce an alien element at the rear of the building dominating the original thatched roof of the property. The introduction of a first floor element at the western end at the front of the property would also be inappropriate and would conflict with the dominance of the main elevation of the property, in particular compared with the existing lean-to extension which is visually insignificant.

I do not consider that the proposals comply with the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan Policies B1, B6, D1, or H7 and do not reflect guidance contained in PPG15 in respect of Listed Buildings and the Historic Environment. I therefore have no alternative but to recommend the applications for refusal.

Recommendation - Refusal (both applications)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The proposed extension because of its size, design, and use of materials would be an inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the Listed Building and would therefore be contrary to Policies B1, D1 and H7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and would conflict with guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.
2	The site is within a designated Conservation Area and the proposal because of its scale, design and use of materials would conflict the Local Planning Authority's intention to protect and enhance the character and amenities of such areas and would therefore be contrary to Policies B6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.

Representations

Shanklin Town Council oppose on the basis that the increased size of the property with associated problems and overlooking; that the design is out of keeping with the street scene due to the increased mass.

Environmental Health Department has no adverse comment.

Evaluation

In January 2001 planning consent was granted for two chalet bungalows with integral garages on this site and in addition on the adjoining site to the north a further two storey dwelling was approved.

This application seeks consent for a revised scheme and details which differ from the original approval are firstly, differences in floor levels and secondly, elevational changes.

The ground floor levels have changed in respect of plot 1 from 50.60 metres to 50.52 metres (a reduction in height of 80 mm) and in the case of plot 2, from 50.00 metres to 50.38 metres, an increase in height of 380 mm.

Elevational changes are to the front elevation increasing the height of the projecting gable by one metre, a commensurate increase in eaves height to incorporate a gable end window to an additional bedroom within the hitherto void area of the roof. On the rear elevation where there was previously a large dormer projection of 7 metres in width, this has been reduced in width to 6.4 metres, but its roof has been increased in its pitch to a level just below the ridge line. The two windows included in this dormer on the rear elevation will now serve a bathroom and shower room, whereas in the previously approved scheme, served two shower rooms. The only other alteration to the elevations includes a 'bulls eye' window adjoining the front door where previously a glazed side panel was approved.

Permission has been granted for these two dwellings and work has commenced on site.

Determination of this revised scheme turns not on principle and policy terms, since those matters have been approved, but in design and whether or not those changes significantly affect any neighbouring properties or the amenity of the area.

The changes in floor level are marginal. Plot 1 has been reduced in height by an amount similar to one brick course, plot 2 has been increased by a height equivalent to five brick courses. It is not felt that these changes would have any significant effect on adjoining properties through loss of privacy or overlooking any greater degree than was previously approved.

Elevation changes on the rear elevation include no further opportunities for overlooking adjoining properties as both the windows included in the dormer will be obscured glass.

In terms of the elevational changes to the front, the forward projecting gable as previously approved increased in height by one metre will not be significant only to those persons using Peacock Close, but as these dwellings are at a lower level than those on the southern side of Peacock Close, the increase in height and the additional window on the gable will not impact either on the privacy or amenity of adjoining properties sufficiently to warrant any resistance.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, this revised design for this already approved development is considered acceptable and consistent with both Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Details of hard and soft landscaping - M10
4	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
5	The first floor windows in the east elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within each site, in accordance with the plan attached, for two cars to be parked and the provisions made shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

22.	TCP/13787/B P/01507/01 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin Central Registration Date: 24/08/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Change of use from retail (class A1) to take away (class A3) Regency Antiques, 64 Regent Street, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO377AE

Representations

Shanklin Town Council recommend approval of this application.

Environmental Health Officer considered originally submitted application contained insufficient information to comment fully on impact of proposed development. Further information has been received from the applicant and the Environmental Health Section have confirmed they have no objection to the proposed opening hours. The proposed contents of the extract system and its point of emission to atmosphere is acceptable. They are however, concerned about the potential for noise disturbance to neighbouring residential properties and recommend the applicant ensures that the plant is suitably enclosed with sound insulating materials to ensure no loss of amenity to neighbouring premises.

Three individual letters of objection to the proposal have been received on the following grounds:

Loss of A1 retail outlet and already enough cafes/A3 use in area.

Effect on other traders.

Restaurants and takeaways at saturation point.

Semi-domestic area and inherent late night problems with proposed use.

Highway Engineer raises no comment.

Evaluation

Application property is situated on western side of Regent Street approximately 30 metres south of junction with Carter Road. Application seeks consent to change use of premises which are currently operating as antique shop to A3 use, ie food and drink outlet. Applicant has indicated intention to prepare Indian style food, although as yet is undecided as to whether he will diversify to sell other types of food.

With regards to policy, property is located within town centre boundary wherein Policy R1 states:

"Applications that protect and maintain and/or enhance retail function of defined town centres as a whole will be acceptable in principle."

The site is not within a retail only frontage policy which relates to south western side of Regent Street.

Given policy background, there is no objection in principle to alternative commercial use of this property which is seen as complying with Policy R1 in maintaining commercial activity within defined town centres.

The proposal seeks to change the entire ground floor of the premises to takeaway use and keeps the first floor as a one bedroom residential flat. The applicant has confirmed there will be no more than three members of staff on the premises and the opening hours of the takeaway will be between 5.30 pm and 11.30 pm, seven days a week. There are no changes to the fabric or internal layout of the building with the exception of the required extractor fan and associated ducting at the rear of the property. The applicant has confirmed that the cooking and extraction plant will run within the opening hours, although the plant is envisaged to be started 30-45 minutes before opening time in order to prepare food with the machinery being shut off before closing time or at closing time on busy nights. A six or eight burner cooking appliance will be installed in the kitchen for preparation of food.

With regard to the over-provision of food outlets in the area, such a matter in itself is not a planning consideration. The concern expressed regarding inherent late night problems and the proposal being in a semi-domestic area have been considered, but given that the Environmental Health Section has no objection to the proposed hours. Subject to suitable sound insulation materials to ensure no loss of amenity to neighbouring properties which can be covered by planning condition, I do not consider there is any reasonable planning objection to the proposal and recommend accordingly.

1. Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The premises shall not operate other than between 1730 to 2330 hours daily. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in general and surrounding residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Details of the means of extraction of fumes and smells from the premises and sound insulating materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use hereby approved is commenced. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The means of extraction of fumes and smells and the sound insulating materials from the premises as required by Condition 3 of this consent shall be installed before the use is commenced, and thereafter effectively operated for as long as the use continues. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Provision of litter bins - C15

2. Recommendation - That a covering letter be sent with the decision notice advising applicant of the need to notify Health and Safety Section of Environmental Health Division of employment of persons at work. Also drawing attention to fact that compliance with planning conditions does not provide a defence against statutory action under other legislation concerning noise or odour control.

23.	TCP/14571/G P/01862/01 Parish/Name: Totland Ward: Totland Registration Date: 18/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 Formation of vehicular access, (revised scheme) land adjacent 1 Oak Terrace, Moons Hill, Totland Bay, PO39

Representations

Totland Parish Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineer recommends approval subject to conditions. He refers to a natural indent in the bank where access is proposed which provides acceptable visibility without having to grub-out huge lengths of hedgerow. Furthermore, he states that proposed access would be noticeably safer than existing one.

Council's Ecologist has confirmed that he has visited the site with owner and his agent together with a Highways representative who have agreed a revised position for proposed access which avoids damage to the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), minimises the removal of an important hedgerow and significantly reduces the impact on the Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB).

Senior Countryside Officer confirms that due consideration has been given to the AONB designation and that the revised route significantly reduces the impact upon AONB. He therefore raises no objection to proposed development.

County Archaeologist recommends condition should application be approved.

Council's AONB Officer objected to previous application before she left the Authority on grounds that the damage caused by proposed development would be detrimental to the AONB and therefore contrary to Policy C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. She has submitted representations as a private individual in respect of this most recent application exercising a personal objection and pointing out that the Council is under a statutory duty to have due regard for the designation of the AONB and that, in her opinion, the application should be resisted.

Ten signatory petition has been received from local residents raising no objection in principle to proposed development providing position of proposed driveway is strictly adhered to and no other parking restrictions are placed on Moons Hill.

Evaluation

Application relates to a substantial detached house located in an isolated position underneath Tennyson Down on southern side of Moons Hill at Totland. Property is accessed via a 240 metre long narrow track off Moons Hill immediately adjacent a group of dwellings known as Oak Terrace. Existing access is at an acute angle to highway meaning that visibility in a westerly direction is particularly poor. Site is shown to be within AONB and SINC.

This section of Moons Hill is narrow and characterised by steep grass banks (approximately 1.8 metres high) on both sides with hedging and trees on top.

Consent refused for the formation of a vehicular access on 5 September 2001 under the Agreed Delegated Powers Procedure. Refused plans identified the proposed access to be approximately 90 metres west of existing access which was shown to be closed off if planning permission had been granted for proposed development. Submitted plans also indicated the substantial removal of hedgerow and bank in order to provide the necessary visibility splays. Reasons for refusal related to the impact of development on setting of AONB, detrimental affect on the ecological integrity of the SINC and that construction of proposed access and associated visibility splays would lead to the loss of a section of hedgerow which qualifies as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Consent is now sought for the formation of vehicular access off Moons Hill approximately 42 metres west of existing access. Existing access is considered to be sub-standard by reason of poor visibility particularly in a westerly direction and is shown to be closed off should planning permission be granted for proposed development. Submitted plan shows a cutting to be made through existing bank with the excavated soil to be used to fill existing cutting and cover existing disused track.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the proposed access can be created without adding unduly to the hazards of other highway users or having a detrimental affect on the visual amenities of the area designated as an AONB or on the ecological integrity of the site which is designated as a SINC.

Site is shown to be outside of the development envelope for Totland as identified on the IOW Unitary Development Plan where it is confirmed that application site is within an AONB and SINC. Relevant policies are therefore considered to be C1, C2, C11 and TR7. C1 refers to Protection of Landscape Character and states that applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. C2 refers to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and states that within the AONBs planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and where the proposal will reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development. C11 refers to SINCs and states that when approving proposals for development affecting SINCS, the Council will require the retention and management of the important wildlife habitats and features, within and adjacent to the development site. TR7 refers to Highway Considerations for New Development and states that applications for new developments will be approved where they ensure that proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic and that any new vehicular access points are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users.

Existing access is well below the required standard as far as visibility is concerned and is particularly poor in a westerly direction. I am therefore of the opinion that existing access has the potential to cause a hazard to other highway users. Proposed vehicular access will without doubt improve access arrangements with good visibility possible in both directions. The issue to be addressed however is whether the proposed safer access can be developed without compromising the visual amenities of the area and the ecological integrity of the SINC.

Revised position for access has been identified as it already has good visibility in both directions meaning that associated works to remove roadside hedge and bank will not be substantial. It is inevitable that the removal of hedge and cutting through bank to provide access will have an impact on the visual amenities of the area. However, the scale of work has been substantially reduced and approval of this application will allow for the existing sub-standard access to be blocked up and part of existing track to be laid to grass. Taking these points into consideration, I am of the opinion that reasons for refusal of the previous application have been addressed. Although there will be some effect on the AONB, this is mitigated by the closure and restriction of the existing access and outweighed by the benefit to highway safety which will result. Members should note that the Council's Ecologist is now satisfied with the proposed scheme and takes the view that proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the ecological integrity of the site.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the highway advantages of proposed development coupled with the improvements made in this latest application will outweigh the initial impact that this development may have on the character of area. I take the view that any long term impact can be mitigated against by the provision of a suitable landscaping scheme. Proposal therefore accords with policy.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The existing access to Downs Cottage shall be permanently closed and stopped up by reinstating the grass bank and planting native hedging on this bank in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any planting removed, dying or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, becoming seriously damaged within five years of this consent, shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and to comply with Policies C2 and TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No work shall take place until details of the proposed access track, including width and finish, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area designated as an AONB and to comply with Policy C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Conditions requested by Highway Engineer.

24.	TCP/15763/K P/01674/01 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin Central Registration Date: 20/09/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Terrace of 6 houses and at, Josephs Way, Shanklin, PO37

Representations

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions if approved. Shanklin Town Council raise concern over the ability of the area to accept any further development as it may increase the level of drainage, increase traffic and impact on pedestrian safety and suggest that an overall plan for the area should be developed rather that piecemeal development. Thus recommending refusal.

One letter of objection from local resident on grounds of generation of additional traffic in Carter Avenue/Brook Road; exacerbation of drainage problems further down the surface water drainage route.

Evaluation

This is a site of approximately 0.083 hectares, overall dimensions of approximately 36 metres by 20 metres located to the east of the car park which serves the properties at Joseph's Way at Shanklin. On the north side site is bounded by a line of maisonettes fronting both Carter Avenue and the application site and car park and to the south by further maisonettes at a much lower level and separated from the site by an area of dense natural growth on a steeply sloping site. Site itself slopes very steeply from north to south. To the east is Butts Copse and to the west, on the opposite side of Joseph's Way is Denny Gardens a comparatively modern development of about 12 properties.

This application seeks consent for a single terrace of six dwellings in a three staggered block providing accommodation within each unit on two floors comprising living room and kitchen/dining room on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom on first floor. Dwellings are proposed to be constructed in brick works with ridge roofs clad in dark brown concrete tiles. Due to the steepness of the ground, the site will have two 'permacrib' retaining walls at the front and at the rear of the dwellings which will face in a southerly direction. The site layout between the two existing lines of maisonettes will leave approximately 14 metres between the new block and the existing to the north and approximately 20 metres between the front face and the dwellings to the south, although, in that instance, there will be much intervening land and vegetation. Car parking will be provided within the existing car park which appears underused at present.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle; matters relating to traffic generation, density, overlooking and possible loss of privacy and adequacy of drainage.

In terms of policy and principle the site is located within the designated development envelope and mostly surrounded by residential uses and therefore the principle is not is question. In terms of density, development of the site would result in a density of development similar to the density of Brockwood Drive and Denny Gardens and similar density to the individual sites of housing to both the north and south adjoining. In terms of arrangement of dwellings, whilst in linier form, the six dwellings proposed would be comparable with adjoining development and at a distance which would be acceptable since the dwellings which are closer to the north, are a significantly higher level approximately 3 metres difference between floor levels of the respective dwellings. Although the new dwellings would be significantly higher than those to the south, again the difference in ground levels and the dense vegetation would provide effective screening. It is not considered that loss of privacy would be an issue which would resist the development proposed.

In terms of traffic generation, there is an additional six properties served off the Carter Avenue/Blythe Way cul-de-sac. However, the Highway Engineer considers this to be a satisfactory situation, recommending conditions if approved.

Turning to matters of drainage, it is known, that occasionally heavy rainfall has caused problems lower down stream in Collingwood Road and Brook Road. Development itself does not generate additional volumes of water but does allow run off at a faster rate. Although it is suggested that drainage is taken to existing sewers, in the case of surface water, it may be appropriate to build in some attenuation to ensure that speed of run off is not significantly higher than existing rates.

This is a piece of recreational land located between residential properties. Its development, however, does not result in the loss of the total amenity area, there being a significant amount retained immediately adjoining the southern side of the site and further land on the southern side of the southern most line of development. Its development would provide six additional dwellings, a more economic use of urban land in a presently under used site.

Reasons for Recommendation

The sites development of six dwellings would increase the housing stock whilst utilising land more economically without an adverse effect on any adjoining property. The development therefore complies with Policies D1, D3 and H5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the plan attached for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear and such provision shall be retained. The car parking area shall be marked out with parking bays of 2.4 by 4.8 metres. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Drainage - G07
7	A Footpath link shall be made to the footpath abutting the eastern side of the site to the path serving the fronts of the dwellings before the dwellings hereby approved are occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate safe provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to gain access to the site and to comply with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Representations

Highway Engineer originally objected to application on grounds that site cannot accommodate adequate facilities to enable vehicles to turn. Revised plans have since been submitted showing alterations to parking and turning area which satisfy requirements of Highway Engineer. He has therefore withdrawn his objection and has indicated informally that he will recommend approval subject to conditions.

Letter received from occupiers of the Old Sunday School which is one of three converted residential units in the former chapel located on the corner of Horsebridge Hill and Noke Common. Points of objection can be summarised as follows:

Loss of light to living room and kitchen. Main source of light to living room comes from patio doors which face directly on to proposed development.

Application site is approximately 1.3 metres higher than objectors property even before work takes place.

Exacerbate on-street parking problems close to the junction with Horsebridge Hill and Noke Common.

Insufficient space between objectors property and proposed dwelling.

Spoil character of neighbouring chapel which has been converted into living units.

Objectors have confirmed in writing that they have viewed revised plans but still continue to object to the proposed development.

Evaluation

Application relates to a rectangular shaped piece of land fronting onto Noke Common approximately 35 metres west of its junction with Horsebridge Hill. Site has been made up of garden land which currently serves no. 3 Noke Common and a piece of obsolete garden which may at some time have belonged to one of the residential properties fronting onto Horsebridge Hill. Immediately east of site is a former chapel which has been converted into residential units. Immediately west of proposed dwellings is a detached house known as no. 3 Noke Common which also forms part of the application site.

Full consent is sought for a pair of semi-detached houses. Site has overall length of some 24 metres with frontage onto Noke Common being approximately 15 metres. Proposed dwellings are shown to be approximately 2.7 metres from eastern boundary which is shared with neighbouring converted chapel and approximately 2.2 metres from newly formed western boundary between proposed dwellings and existing property known as no. 3 Noke Common. Dwellings are shown to be approximately 8.5 metres back from highway with space in front of and to the side of dwellings for the turning and parking of vehicles. Each dwelling is shown to have a lounge, kitchen, hall and w.c. at ground floor with three bedrooms, landing and bathroom at first floor level. The house on western side of plot is shown to have a decorative gable fronting onto the highway with the adjoining house having its ridge running through 90 degrees with two half-style dormers fronting onto Noke Common. Revised plans have been submitted which show the dwelling nearest to the chapel being slightly lower and slightly further away from the converted church. Proposed house is approximately 6.9 metres high at a distance of some 5.4 metres from objector. Because of the change in ground levels, proposed dwelling nearest to former chapel is approximately 7.8 metres above floor level of objector's property.

Majority of application site is made up of garden which belongs to and is alongside no. 3 Noke Common. Submitted plans shown part of the obsolete garden to rear to be allocated to no. 3 in order to compensate for the loss of its garden area to accommodate the proposed dwellings. Each dwelling is shown to have a rear garden which measures approximately 6.5 metres in length.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle and whether the application site can be developed with a pair of semi-detached houses without having a detrimental affect on the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of area in general.

Site is shown to be within the development envelope for Newport as identified on the IW Unitary Development Plan and therefore, in general terms, is considered to be suitable for residential development subject to other material considerations. Policy D1 refers to Standards of Design and states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design, be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing, of a height, mass and density which is compatible with surrounding buildings and does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

Main consideration is the impact of proposed development on amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of The Old Sunday School which is one of three residential units contained within converted chapel. The Old Sunday School is at the western end of building with a kitchen door/window and a set of patio doors serving lounge in the western elevation. Occupiers of this property point out that patio doors provide the main source of light to lounge and state that this will be compromised as a result of proposed development. Furthermore, they state that the floor level of their property is approximately 1.3 metres lower than the level of application site suggesting that proposal will have an even greater impact.

Plans as originally submitted indicated that proposed house nearest to objector would be approximately 7.6 metres high at a distance of 4.8 metres from objectors property. Revised plans have now been submitted showing a greater distance of 5.4 metres between objector and proposed dwelling together with a reduction in height to 6.9 metres. Proposed houses are directly west of objectors property. I am aware that some loss of light will occur as a result of this development and have been conscious of this during discussions and negotiations. The scheme has now been revised in an attempt to minimise the impact of development by increasing the gap between existing and proposed dwellings as well as reducing the overall height. I remain of the view that some loss of light will occur but consider that this will be later on in the day and that it will not be of such significance so as to justify refusal of this application which has the benefit of making efficient use of this site and therefore helping to ease the pressure on greenfield sites. Regarding potential for loss of privacy, submitted plans show only one window in each side elevation to serve a downstairs toilet. This window will be finished in frosted glass which can be controlled by way of an appropriate condition. I am therefore of the opinion that proposal will not lead to a significant loss of privacy to neighbouring property occupiers.

Regarding impact on general character of the area, both houses have been designed slightly differently with one house being stepped slightly further back together with a break in the ridge-line. There is a considerable gap between proposed dwellings and respective neighbouring properties with a reasonable distance between the forward most part of dwellings and the highway. Taking these points into consideration, I am of the opinion that proposed dwellings will sit comfortably into the street scene without compromising the visual amenities of the area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the site can be developed with a pair of semi-detached houses as shown on the revised plans without having a significant impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of area in general. Proposed site is of sufficient size to accommodate the necessary parking and turning areas. Proposal therefore accords with policy.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
4	The cloakroom windows in the east and west elevations shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing, all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To protect the privacy of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Conditions as requested by the Highway Engineer.

26.	TCP/17246/C P/00844/01 Parish/Name: Brading Ward: Brading and St Helens Registration Date: 14/05/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577 Alterations and 2 storey extension to enlarge accommodation rig O Lea, Lower Road, Adgestone, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360HL

Representations

Town Council object to application as development would be excessive in scale and therefore out of keeping with character of rural area. They suggest the applicant resubmit plans for a less extensive building.

Highway Engineer indicates there are no highway implications.

Five letters received from local residents indicating that they consider the scheme to be in keeping with the area and not unduly intrusive or over dominant and therefore have no objection to the proposed extension.

Evaluation

This application relates to a two storey semi detached cottage constructed with facing brick elevations under a gabled slate roof. The property is situated on the southern side of lower road and is in a rural area with a scattering of established dwellings.

The site is within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The property itself comprises one of a pair of two storey houses with a gabled elevation fronting the road and a projecting wing at the side, also with a gabled roof. The property is one of a pair the adjacent property having the same design with matching gable on the frontage. The adjoining property has however been the subject of a two storey extension at the side which is set well back from the main frontage and does not significantly effect the visual appearance or symmetry of the property. There are a number of similar cottages in the locality, many of which have been the subject of alterations and extensions. Any extensions have generally been restricted to the rear and side parts of the buildings retaining the balance and symmetry of the existing structures from the frontage.

The application under consideration is for construction of a two storey extension on the eastern side of the property which would comprise a doubled gabled slate roof, part of which would extend the existing gabled roof at the rear of the properly and part would infill the space at the side of the property and would be set back from the main frontage by approximately 300mm. The part of the extension close to the frontage would measure approximately 6 metres in width by 4 metres in depth and the rear part would extend approximately 3 metres beyond the existing side gable of the property. The extension would contain an entrance lobby, a sitting room and kitchen at ground floor level with one new bedroom and one enlarged bedroom at first floor level. There is also a substantial lean-to ground floor conservatory extension at the rear of the property which would not be affected by these proposals, although some internal rearrangement of the property is also proposed.

I am concerned that the scale and design of the proposed extension, although reflecting some of the traditional details of the existing building, would be unduly dominant, and in particular the front section which would be very close to the front elevation of the property would be visually intrusive and over dominant, spoiling the balanced appearance of this traditional pair of two storey dwellings.

Extended negotiations have been undertaken with the applicant and in particular, it has been suggested that an extension set back from the main frontage, similar in size and scale to that on the adjoining property would be more appropriate in this location.

Some revised sketches have been provided showing a slight set back of the front element in order to reduce its visual impact. The sketches do however indicate that this would create other problems, in particular resulting in an awkward roof shape and an unbalanced side elevation, which would be clearly seen due to the open nature of the site on the eastern side. The negotiations have not therefore resulted in submission of formal revised plans for consideration and the application is now before Members for determination in its originally submitted form.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed two storey extension would be excessively large and over dominant in relation to the scale and appearance of the existing building, with particular reference to the effect of the proposals on the symmetry and balance of the pair of semi detached cottages. As negotiations have been unsuccessful, I have no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal as I do not consider the submitted details would comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, H7 or C2.

Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The proposed extension by reason of its size, design and location would be intrusive, out of scale with this and neighbouring dwellings as well as having an adverse effect on the visual amenities on the locality and would therefore be contrary to Policies D1 and H7 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 proposed extension would by reason of its size, design and location be considered detrimental to the amenities and appearance of the area contrary to Policy C2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

27.

TCP/20498/B P/01082/00 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown North Registration Date: 21/07/2000 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Building to form garage & utility/storage area with access off The Broadway (revised plans), rear of Sandown Garage, Avenue Road, Sandown, PO36

Representations

Sandown Town Council raise no objection, providing building is to be used for domestic purposes only.

Highway Engineer initially raised concerns regarding rights of way over driveway serving the application site. He noted that site is presently used for storage purposes and made the following comments in respect of access:

The access is narrow and joins Broadway 40 metres to east of the junction with Avenue Road.

Broadway carries a significant, almost constant volume of traffic in both directions.

Visibility in both directions is very restricted by high boundary walls and exacerbated by the narrow footway at this point.

Turning space is normally available, although the more vehicles that are allowed to use the access and park, the more congested the area becomes and the less likely a turning area will remain available. A satisfactory turning area is very important to be retained at this point.

I would not wish to support a proposal which generated a significant increase in traffic at this point or result in the obstruction or loss of the turning area.

Having regard to these comments, he made the following suggestions:

Inclusion of the access and turning area within the application site.

Confirmation that the applicant has the right of vehicular access.

Assurance that the use of the site/workshop or garage is for the applicants private use and not in conjunction with any business.

Following additional information provided by applicant and further consideration of the matter, Highway Engineer recommends condition, should application be approved, requiring provision of turning space within application site. He also acknowledges that matters relating to rights of way over access drive are a private issue and not relevant to the determination of the planning application.

Chief Environmental Protection Officer comments that submission does not clearly indicate proposed use of garage but assumes that this may be related to motor vehicle repair. In any event, he suggests that any approval should be subject to a condition prohibiting the carrying out of any mechanical or other work in the open air if the proposed use is a commercial one. Similarly, operating hours may need to be restricted to exclude Sundays, Bank Holidays and other times between the hours of 1800 hours and 0800 hours the following day.

Twelve letters received from local residents and adjoining property owners/occupiers, including eight copies of a pro forma letter, objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Is garage for private use? Site is nowhere near applicants home address and consequently security problems may result.

Generation of traffic.

Site is an eyesore in derelict state and has been used for storage of building materials and wrecked vehicles. Further dumping may result and development may lead to oil spillages or similar.

Noise from use of building may cause nuisance/disturbance to neighbouring properties.

Site served by dangerous access onto the Broadway.

Permission previously refused for development of the site.

Size of building suggests that it is to be used for commercial purposes.

Site is used for storage/parking of vehicles and concern is expressed that development may lead to creation of additional parking spaces.

Height of building may lead to loss of light.

One objector indicates that they would have no objection if garage is to be used for domestic purposes only.

Following publicity of revised plans three further letters were received objecting to proposal on same grounds as previously stated. One objector raised matters relating to damage to/maintenance of drains in area. In this respect, Members are advised that any damage caused to drainage in the area during construction works would be a private matter between the developer and other parties involved and is not relevant to the determination of the planning application.

Evaluation

Application relates to roughly rectangular shaped area of land located to rear of properties fronting Avenue Road and the Broadway. Access to the site is gained over narrow concrete driveway off the Broadway. Site is, for most part, overgrown with caravan and car port type structure located at southern end of the land, in position which equates to that of proposed garage.

Outline planning permission for dwelling on site was refused in October 1990 on grounds that the proposal constituted back land development, prejudicial to the privacy and amenities of adjoining residential properties, cramped arrangement of dwellings and that access was unsatisfactory to serve the proposed development by reason of inadequate width/visibility.

Determining factors in considering application are whether access is adequate to serve proposed building and whether proposal would have excessive impact to detriment of amenities of adjoining residential properties.

Site is located within development envelope on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 - Development will be concentrated within existing urban areas.

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

G1 - Development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes. Land outside these boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

G4 - General Locational Criteria. Proposals will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy which, in general, seek to protect the environment and character of the locality.

D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Proposals will be expected to comply with the criteria set out in the policy.

Proposed building would have maximum length of approximately 10.2 metres, maximum width of approximately 5.8 metres and was shown on plans which accompanied submission to be constructed with mono pitched roof with height of approximately 4.2 metres. Information contained on application forms indicated that building was to be used as garage/workshop and that present use of site was for storage of vehicles and materials.

Revised plans were subsequently submitted showing building constructed with pitched roof with slightly off set ridge. Height of building was reduced to approximately 3.4 metres to ridge. In addition, applicant confirmed in writing that garage was to be used for private purposes only and in particular, for storage of two 1960's vehicles for restoration.

Proposed garage is shown on submitted plans to be located immediately adjacent and to rear of commercial building fronting Avenue Road, used for car sales, and adjacent rear boundary and parking area to properties fronting the Broadway. In terms of physical impact of building on adjoining properties, I do not consider that this would be excessive or would have detrimental effect on amenities of those properties. In particular, it should be noted that building would be located on north side of garden areas to properties fronting the Broadway and having regard to position within site in relation to other adjoining properties and adjoining commercial premises, I am satisfied that proposal will not result in unacceptable loss of sun/day light.

With exception of commercial premises immediately to east of site of proposed building, site is bounded on all sides by residential properties. Therefore, subject to suitable restrictions being imposed on use of building, I am satisfied that proposal will not detract from amenities of area in general and of adjoining residential properties in particular. Should Members be minded to approve application, I consider that permission should be subject to condition restricting use of building to private/domestic purposes only.

With regard to adequacy of access, whilst permission has previously been refused for a dwelling within the site on grounds which included unsatisfactory access, I do not consider that construction of garage within site as proposed would generate level of vehicular movements which would be associated with residential occupation. Furthermore, in the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer I do not consider that refusal on grounds of inadequate access would be sustainable. Whilst Highway Engineer initially sought confirmation that applicant has right of way over the access drive, I would stress that any dispute in this respect would be a private matter and not relevant to the determination of the planning application.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that erection of a building as proposed would not detract from amenities of area in general and adjoining residential occupiers in particular, subject to its use being restricted to private/domestic purposes only. Furthermore, I consider that use of building for private/domestic purposes would not generate significant volume of traffic and I am satisfied that access is adequate to serve the development. On the basis that building is not to be used for any commercial purpose, I do not consider there to be any need to impose restrictions on operating hours or practices. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposal conflicts with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Construction of the building hereby permitted shall not commence until a schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Provision of turning area - K40
4	The building hereby approved shall be used for private/domestic purposes only and shall not be used for any commercial purpose, including the storage of materials in connection with a business, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and limit vehicle movements to and from the site and to comply with Policy D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

28.	TCP/20683/D P/01594/01 Parish/Name: Rookley Ward: Central Rural Registration Date: 12/09/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Proposed playground to include skateboard ramp & basketball post Highwood Lane Sports Ground, Highwood Lane, Rookley, Ventnor, PO38

Representations

Highway Engineer states there are no highway implications.

Crime Reduction and Architectural Liaison Officer raises concern about the location of the proposal due to poor surveillance from passing vehicle or pedestrian traffic and no surveillance from any residential or commercial properties. Having liaised with applicant, Architectural Liaison Officer confirms there are no plans to light the area and it is expected to be used during natural light time. In the circumstances, no objections raised on condition there is a clause about an exit strategy should the development attract problems that do not currently exist.

Environmental Health have no adverse comment based on disturbance to closest properties and no floodlighting.

Sport England raises no objection to the proposal.

Southern Electric have no observation other than to indicate care to be taken when excavation in vicinity of underground cables.

Two letters have been received objecting to the proposal. Points of objection are summarised as follows:

Increased noise nuisance.

Increased litter.

Attracts anti-social behaviour and crime.

Proposal out of keeping with rural area.

Increase in traffic.

If lighting required, will alter rural character of area.

If approval to be granted, should be relocated to northernmost side of site.

Evaluation

Application relates to existing sports field which is situated at the junction of Main Road and Highwood Lane, Rookley. This is a rural locality with some residential properties to south east of proposal. North western boundary to Main Road has mature tree screen; limited screening on Highwood Lane south eastern boundary. In excess of 2 metre roadside screen on south western boundary.

With regard history of site, consent granted in 1991 for change of use of agricultural land to playing field/recreation area and car park; safety netting up to a maximum height of 5.5 metres on part of north west and south east boundary approved during 1993; sports pavilion approved July 1997 subject to conditions; removal of condition restricting use of the sports pavilion approved July 1998.

This is a full application seeking consent for a playground, basket ball post and skateboard ramp to be sited in the south west corner of the site close to the existing vehicular access. The ramp itself has overall measurements of 5420 long by 2440 wide with a height varying between 900 and 1500. The basketball post is to be sited on a one metre cube concrete base. The playground area will be Bitmac surfaced and is 2400 long by 1200 wide.

Main planning considerations are policy and guidance notes. The relevant guidance note (no. 17 - Sport and Recreation) advises of the need to identify sites that involve noisy sports that minimise conflict with other users.

Site is located outside development envelope boundary and the following policies are considered relevant in respect of the IW Unitary Development Plan:

G5 Development outside defined settlements, G10 Potential conflict between proposed development and existing surrounding uses, C1 Protection of land scape character, L2 Formal recreation provision, L9 Noisy sports.

Given established recreational/sports use of application site, main planning consideration relates to impact on amenities of locality in general and nearby residential properties.

With regard distance from residential properties, approximately 130 metres exists between proposal and properties. In respect of lighting, appropriate conditions can be attached to any consent so that any lighting would be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.

With regard traffic concern, it is anticipated proposed development will provide an additional facility primarily for local users.

In considering request to relocate within the site, I am of the opinion that the proposed siting is likely to be the most appropriate within the field to minimise any potential impact on neighbours and visual impact of locality.

Circular 11/95 advises that where an application is made for permanent permission for use which may be potentially detrimental to existing uses nearby, but there is insufficient evidence to enable the authority to be sure of its character or affect, it is sometimes appropriate to grant temporary permission in order to give the development a trial run. This advice assumes that such a situation would be reasonable having regard to capital expenditure necessary to carry out the development.

It is considered that the circumstances of this application make it an appropriate case for the authority to consider temporary consent. I therefore consider in this instance, given in particular concern of crime and architectural liaison officer, it will be appropriate to grant consent on a temporary two year basis. Other suggested condition relates to lighting.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 December 2003 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2

No lighting of the proposed facilities shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

29.

TCP/21018/C P/01079/00 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes South Registration Date: 10/05/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Conversion of workshop and storage building to form dwelling, double garage and boat store, (revised scheme), (readvertised application) Unit 2 former depot, Victoria Grove, East Cowes, PO32

Representations

East Cowes Town Council does not object to plan in principle but ask the wells existing on premises be checked to ensure that they present no flood/water related problems to development or nearby areas.

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions should consent be granted.

Environmental Health Officer has visited site and whilst expressing some concern regarding potential for noise disturbance to occur to future occupier of proposed residential unit arising from adjoining and commercial uses point is made that orientation and layout of proposed premises should permit these uses to juxtapose successfully.

Two letters have been received from adjoining owner/occupier objecting to proposal on grounds of increased traffic movements and associated pollutions and potential for loss of privacy due to overlooking.

Evaluation

Application relates to former pump house building which originally lay within curtilage of former County Council Highway Depot situated on northern side of Victoria Grove. Site served by existing access between residential properties which leads to courtyard comprising several outbuildings.

Planning consent granted in 1998 for use of main building on premises as car repair/MOT workshop. Subsequent approval granted in following year for alterations and extension to these premises.

This application seeks consent to convert former pump house building which is sited immediately rear of properties fronting Victoria Grove into residential unit together with construction of double garage and boat store.

Application is supported by structural survey which concludes that despite age of building structure is suitable for conversion.

Pump house in architectural terms represents standard municipal style for turn of century and shows interesting architectural detail, high standard of materials and workmanship in evidence.

Proposal seeks to convert main structure into residential unit comprising kitchen/dining room, single bedroom and large living room and involve the construction of relatively small extension on buildings north eastern corner to provide utility room and entrance lobby facilities. Building itself will be largely unaffected by conversion.

Proposal also incorporates construction of relatively large 'L' shaped outbuilding to provide garage and boat store space. Building will be located to east of pump house and following negotiation with agent building has been moved 3.5 metres away from common boundary with adjoining garden to property having frontage onto Victoria Grove.

In policy terms there is no objection in principle to conversion of this redundant building into residential use which brings architecturally interesting building back into active use providing such use does not potentially conflict with surrounding land uses.

Nearest commercial user involves sign writing operation which is unlikely to present any potential conflict and whilst building to north is used as garage repair workshop construction, orientation and internal layout of proposed residential unit is such that again potential impact between these uses is likely to minimised, a view supported by Environmental Health Officer.

Alterations to building and construction of outbuilding will, given limited work involved and distances to nearest residential property have very limited impact on amenities surrounding residential occupiers. Proposal does not incorporate any off street parking provision however any limited increase use of access is unlikely to raise significant highway issues.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider that conversion of building to residential use provides significant opportunity to retain and upkeep building which represents important historic and architectural local landmark. Proposal is seen as complying with Policies D1, D2 and G10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans) (subject to no adverse comment being received by 28 December 2001 which would warrant reconsideration of the matter).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02
3	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
4	Matching materials - S01
5	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
6	Provision (loading, unloading & parking - K01
7	Provision of turning area - K40

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the meeting held on Tuesday 6 November 2001 in order to formally consult with the Countryside Agency. A copy of the application was sent to the Agency on 7 November 2001 and their comments are awaited.

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

National Air Traffic Services raises no objection on technical safeguarding grounds.

Application has attracted a total of 119 letters of representation. These include 108 letters from Island residents, 7 letters from mainland residents, and letters from Wight Ventures Tourist Organisation, West Wight Roadrunners, a local caravan and camping park and from an agent acting on behalf of The Wight Against Rural Turbines (ThWART). A large proportion of these letters, whilst quoting this application reference, raise objection to principle of "wind farm" at this location and comments relate to revision to the design of the approved wind turbines which is the subject of a separate planning application and will be reported to this Committee for consideration at a later date. Objections in respect of current proposal can be summarised as follows:

Structure would be eyesore in landscape located on highest part of site visible Island wide and would be damaging to the environment.

Site is located in area of considerable beauty and landscape value - within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast.

The landscape is important to the tourist industry and should be kept unaltered.

Structure would be located too close to Worsley Trail popular with walkers.

Proposal must be forerunner to seek permission for wind turbines - Isle of Wight is not suitable area for such industrial technology - should be located off-shore.

Structure would present hazard to horse riders, para-gliders and hang-gliders.

Proposal is contrary to policies C1, C2 and C4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been given enhanced status since June 2000.

Need for anemometer is questioned particularly having regard to fact permission has already been granted for wind turbines. Objectors suggest that "back-to-front" approach has been adopted and that this proposal should have been considered prior to grant of permission for wind turbines. Data collected by company may result in need for even bigger wind turbines.

Noise and other harmful effects generated by proposed structures threaten well-being of local residents and visitors.

Benefits of technology outweighed by intrusive visual characteristics.

Viability of whole project is questionable.

Evaluation

Application relates to open field on eastern side of Brighstone Forest and north of Worsley Trail which runs along ridge of downland in an east-west direction. Land on northern side of Worsley Trail falls away gradually whilst to south land falls away more steeply to Limerstone Road running between Brighstone and Shorwell.

Planning permission is sought for erection of 30 metre high mast to collect anemometry data. Submitted plans indicate that the mast would be located approximately 100 metres to east of boundary with Brighstone Forest, approximately mid-way between 185 and 190 metre contour lines. At its closest point mast would be within approximately 200 metres of the Worsley Trail.

Installation would comprise a 30 metre high guyed mast, having diameter of approximately 150 mm, supporting anemometer and wind direction recorder. The guy-ropes would be affixed to the mast at 6 metre intervals and anchored to ground at radius of 20 metres from base of mast. A small weather-proof box measuring approximately 300 mm x 300 mm with depth of 150 mm would be fixed at base of mast containing recording equipment and battery to provide power source. It is understood that information would be recorded on a data card, similar in size to a credit card, which would need to be replaced approximately once a month, possibly by the landowner.

National guidance on renewable energy is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 22 - Renewable Energy, which has a specific annexe on wind energy. Whilst this advice is directed predominantly towards the siting of permanent wind turbine units, it does make the point that assessing sites will require use of historical meteorological data and information derived from anemometers placed on site. It further advises that the argument that granting permission for one development might lead to another application is unlikely to be sufficient reason for refusal.

Site is shown on IW Unitary Development Plan to be within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent a Site of Importance For Nature Conservation. The site is not within the Heritage Coast. The plan does not contain policies specific to the collection of data relating to wind resources on the Island but the following are considered relevant:

Policy S4

The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

Policy G4

General locational criteria for development. Proposals will be permitted where they comply with the criteria set out in the policy which, in general, seek to protect the character and environment of the area. In particular, proposals will be expected to harmonise with their surroundings.

Policy C1

Protection of landscape character.

Policy C2

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within the designated landscape planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and comply with the criteria set out in the policy.

Policy U18

Development of renewable energy. Proposals for the production of energy from renewable sources will be approved where they comply with the criteria set out in the policy.

The text relative to policy U18 confirms that a study of the range of renewable energy resources in the area carried out in 1993/94 showed that, for the Island, the greatest potential was considered to be the wind resource but this was reduced by environmental constraints. The Council's view, stated in the UDP, is that the plan should reflect a positive approach to harnessing the generating potential from renewable energy sources in an environmentally acceptable way.

Determining factor in considering current application is whether anemometer mast would have significant impact to the detriment of the character of the landscape.

Members will be aware that planning permission has previously been granted, in January 1995 and subsequently renewed in February 2001, for the erection of three wind turbines on land to east of Brighstone Forest. The approved turbines would have a hub height of 30 metres and rotor-blades with diameter of 15.5 metres, each having a generating capacity of 300 kilowatts. Current application was submitted along with separate proposal for variation of the type of turbines to be installed increasing the blade length from 15.5 metres to 22 metres and increasing the generator capacity of each machine to 600 kilowatts. That proposal will be the subject of a separate report to be considered by this Committee at a later date.

It has been suggested in some of the letters of representation that the applicant has approached this matter in a "back-to-front" fashion and the need for the anemometer mast is questioned. However, it is understood that the turbines of the size previously approved would not generate sufficient electricity and are not a viable proposition. Following discussions with applicants agent, I am advised that, from their experience, they are confident that the larger machines would be viable. Furthermore, whilst they are able to make reasonably accurate predictions regarding wind patterns and speed at the site, it is necessary to collect anemometry data to confirm this information prior to the company making a financial commitment in respect of any proposal to erect wind turbines at the site. The applicants agent has denied any suggestion that the information obtained following erection of the anemometer mast would be likely to lead to a requirement for even larger turbines on this site. In any event, should Members be minded to grant permission for the anemometer mast, I do not consider that this should be perceived as any indication of the likely outcome of the application for the larger turbines or would commit the Authority to a favourable determination in this respect. This view reflects the contents of PPG22 referred to above and each application stands to be considered on its individual merits.

It is understood that the anemometer mast would be transported in sections and delivered to site by a single transit van or similar sized vehicle which could gain access to the site along the Worsley trail or across the applicants land. I am advised that the mast would be erected in around half a day and does not require the formation of a concrete plinth or similar foundation but would sit on a square metal base forming part of the mast with guy-ropes anchored to metal stakes driven firmly into the ground.

Mast is clearly designed as a temporary feature which can be easily erected and removed when no longer required. In this respect, information in the submission indicates that the mast would be required to collect anemometry data over an 18-month period. Therefore, should Members be minded to approve application, I consider that permission should be granted for a temporary period accordingly.

Having regard to slender design of the mast, I do not consider that it would have a significant impact in the landscape. Mast would have greatest impact in immediate locality, and in particular from the adjacent Worsley Trail. I consider that impact of mast is likely to diminish with increasing distance and in view of the location of the proposed site of the structure, on ground which is at slightly lower level and to north of ridge along downland, it is likely that only the upper section of the mast would be visible when viewed from lower ground to south of the site, including, for instance, the Military Road.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, whilst acknowledging that site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, I do not consider that proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the locality. I am satisfied that proposal does not conflict with policies contained in the IW Unitary Development Plan and, therefore, I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to any comments that may be received from the Countryside Agency).

Conditions/Reasons:

1

This permission shall be for a limited period expiring on 30 June 2003 on or before which date the anemometer mast shall be permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its former condition unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period. Reason: The structure is of a type not considered suitable for permanent retention and to comply with Policies G4, C1 and C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2

The anemometer mast shall be painted or treated in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the mast being erected on site and shall be retained thereafter in that colour unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policies G4, C1 and C2 of the IW Development Plan.

31.	TCP/21627/C P/00189/01 Parish/Name: Northwood Ward: Northwood Registration Date: 14/02/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Fletcher Tel: (01983) 823598 Demolition of building; proposed 3 houses with integral garages; vehicular access site adjacent 139, Pallance Road, Cowes, PO31

Members will recall that this application was deferred at the Development Control Committee held on 4th September 2001 with the reasons for the deferral being to enable planning officers to negotiate improved design and scale of dwelling with particular reference to space about relating to the rural location of the site. Those negotiations have now taken place resulting in the submission of revised proposals as described below.

Representations

Initial proposal subject of comments from the Highway Engineer which identified the following:

Turning spaces for all three plots are inadequate and required to be amended to ensure minimum of 6.8 metres between the front of the garage door and the furthest extent of the turning area.

Consider it essential that plans should demonstrate two vehicles can be parked within each curtilage and turned within the site.

Bearing in mind the garden of 141 Pallance Road has now been included, this would leave only a single parking space for that property. Visibility in the westerly direction is poor from this point and will be exacerbated if a car were parked in this area.

Reference is made to property being constructed over a ditch but this issue has already been referred to below.

Following receipt of revised plans, Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

One letter of objection received from neighbouring property owner with points raised being summarised as follows.

New houses will extend beyond the rear building line of the adjoining bungalow and will therefore result in a loss of light and sunlight with particular reference to a window in the western facing elevation of that adjoining property.

Application fails to refer to land instability in the area.

Concerned that the proposal may affect an existing drainage pit.

Application fails to refer to boundary treatments with writer being unaware of what type of fence is likely to be constructed adjacent to his property.

Concerned that the turning requirements for vehicles at the front of the new houses are not practical given that there is no pavement and making reference to previous refusals in respect of vehicular accesses.

Copy letter received from Environment Agency to the applicants stating that a representative of that Agency has visited the site and confirm that the slight indentation across the site is not an ordinary watercourse or ditch, instead it is considered to be a scraping and therefore the Agency would not need to consent alterations to it.

The Agency does however recommend use of sustainable urban drainage methods for the disposal of surface water and these techniques not only cater for flood peak attenuation but may also improve water quality and enhance the environment.

The site has been inspected by a representative of the Highway Engineer's Department who has agreed to the removal of the scraping. Also, agreement has been reached to ensure that pea gravel is used around any drainage pipes incorporated into the overall scheme which would act as french drains across the site.

Evaluation

Application relates to a former church hall situated on the southern side of Pallance Road, some 70 metres east of the junction of Pallance Road with Pallance Lane. The site is characterised by a single storey premises located towards the road frontage with the remainder of the site comprising unkept garden area. The application site also includes part of the existing side garden area on the western side of No. 141 Pallance Road. This results in a site which has a 32 metre frontage boundary reducing to 30 metres to the rear and having an average depth of 37 metres.

Planning history is as follows:

In July 1995, application for retention of vehicular access and construction of a car park in conjunction with the New Life Christian Fellowship Mission Hall was refused on the grounds that the access and parking area would prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of 141 Pallance Road and that the access was unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate visibility in a westerly direction.

Most significant history is a consent granted in January 2000 for two detached houses with integral garages with that consent relating only to the curtilage of the church hall and not the additional land adjacent to 141 Pallance Road. That consent was for two 4-bedroom integral garage units of similar mass and scale to those being proposed in this current application, although the units were a metre wider than the current application.

Proposal now before Members follows negotiations which have resulted in the submission of revised scheme which continues to indicate three detached two storey houses each providing four bedroom accommodation although only two now include an integral single garage. The two integral garage houses remain the same as on the original submitted plan being located in the eastern part of the site. Footprint of these units indicates a width of 8.45 metres by a maximum depth of 12.7 metres which provides a metre on either side of the two plots when viewed from Pallance Road. These two units are on similar mass although applicants have introduced elevational changes to each of the two units introducing in one case a gable projecting feature with the other unit being entirely of hipped roofs and each unit has different fenestration design. Overall the two units will be constructed in facing brick under tiled roof with the main shape of the roof being hipped in form.

The main revision following negotiation relates to plot 3 being the plot immediately adjacent 141 Pallance Road on the western side of the site. Applicants now indicate a smaller unit in footprint terms omitting any integral garage and designed to have entirely gabled roof features with traditional sash windows. Parking is to be provided by way of spaces to the front of the dwelling with turning space and that turning space to link with further parking for the property 141 Pallance Road. The reduced footprint has enabled slightly more space to be provided either side which is evident particularly when viewed from Pallance Road there being minimum 1.3 metres to a maximum of 1.4 metres either side. Also despite the narrowing of the plot proposal does provide a metre width at the back of the dwelling where it is adjacent to the boundary of 141 Pallance Road.

Members will recall that the previous proposal related to all three dwellings being of the same footprint but with variations on design which after analysis was considered as being inappropriate bearing in mind the rural location and therefore the proposal was being recommended for refusal. That refusal recommendation related to what was considered by officers to be a monotonous repetition of dwellings of the same plan height mass and similar external appearance which would produce an unsatisfactory standard of cramped built environment adversely effecting the visual amenity of the rural locality

Members in deferring the application considered that the proposal could be improved by way of negotiations which has resulted in the above revised proposal with particular reference to plot 3. An important assessment of this proposal is the extant consent of January 2000 which obviously could be implemented at any time. To an extent the revised proposals is very much a compromise with the unit now indicated on plot 3 reflecting very much the architecture of the adjoining semi detached property 141 Pallance Road.

It is appreciated that there are a number of solutions to developing sites some are or all of which could be equally as acceptable. Applicant in this case wishes to develop this site in the form of detached units and through negotiation has introduced a change to the general theme of the three units. I consider that the proposal particularly in terms of plot 3 and its relationship to 141 Pallance Road represent a considerable improvement and will assist in providing variation which I consider is essential in the street scene particularly bearing in mind the approved development on the eastern part of the site. I therefore consider the proposal in its revised form to be acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations referred to in the Evaluation I consider that the revised proposal now provides a suitable solution and will sit satisfactorily in the street scene with particular reference to its rural location and therefore I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The vehicular accesses to plots 1 and 2 and plots 3 and 141 Pallance Road shall be grouped in pairs and splayed prior to the development being brought into use, in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The accesses and crossing of the highway verge shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: (a) Footway Construction (strengthening) for light vehicles 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicle crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Provision of turning area - K40
5	The existing access serving 141 Pallance Road shall be stopped up and abandoned in accordance with a scheme to be agreed on completion of the new joint access with plot 3. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the roadside boundary of the site shall be lowered to a maximum of 1 metre in height above existing road level over the whole frontage (including the frontage of 141 Pallance Road) and shall be maintained thereafter at a height no greater than 1 metre. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	The development shall not be brought into use until two parking spaces including garages for each new dwelling has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Boundary details - M33
9	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
10	Submission of samples - S03
11	Landscape scheme - M14
12	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and en-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) within the east elevation of the dwelling on plot 1 and the west elevation of the dwelling on plot 3 shall be constructed. Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

32.

TCP/21755/A P/01694/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East Registration Date: 25/09/2001 - Development for sale by Council (Reg4) Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Demolition of bowls club house, ticket office, pump/computer shed & kiosk; construction of bowls club house, harbour masters office & yachtsmen's facilities; kiosk & associated landscaping and adjacent Bowling Green, Eastern Gardens, Esplanade, Ryde, PO33

Representations

Highway Engineer raises no objection to proposal.

Islandwatch object to application on grounds that building is excessively large and out of keeping with area. They are of opinion that the whole Esplanade appears to be getting steadily built-up, undermining efforts to restore Ryde as an attractive place to live and visit.

One letter has been received and whilst raising no objection, writer does raise concern in respect of height of harbour master's office building with writer of the opinion that overall height of new building should not exceed at the proposed bowling club or fishing club premises.

Twenty letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

Height of proposed building is excessive and will over-dominate seafront and represent development out of keeping and scale with locality.

Esplanade is an important Conservation Area which is gradually being spoilt by inappropriate development on incremental basis.

Approval of building of this height would set precedent for future development.

Proposal will not represent tourist attraction.

Loss of existing hedgerow.

Loss of crazy golf facility.

Evaluation

Application relates to land situated between existing bowling green and amusement park which represents long narrow strip of land having return frontages to both the seafront and the Esplanade. Site is currently used as crazy golf course facility.

Application seeks consent for construction of part single part two storey building over virtually entire depth of site 52 metres (having width of some 7.5 metres). Two storey element which fronts promenade will occupy depth of some 10.3 metres. Proposal also involves removal of existing kiosk on promenade frontage and various existing buildings on the Esplanade frontage involving mainly former bowls clubhouse, pump/computer shed, water tank and ticket office. Replacement kiosk on promenade frontage would be attached to side of proposed two storey building.

Briefly, building would provide new bowling club facility at ground floor level, including social area, toilets, showers and various small office/storage rooms. First floor accommodation would provide for harbour master's office and meeting room.

In design terms, main two storey element would be predominantly glazed under hipped roof with single storey element comprising glazed gable end features with entire building being constructed in light coloured facing bricks under grey slate roof.

In terms of relevant history, planning consent was granted in November 1995 for pavilion providing kitchen, dining room, bar and changing facilities on current application site. Development incorporated construction of single storey building.

Main planning considerations are requirements of Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which places duty on Local Planning Authorities to protect and/or enhance Conservation Areas and relevant policies of Unitary Development Plan in respect of design and visual appropriateness of development.

It is relevant to note comments of Inspector in dealing with 1993 appeal against refusal of permission for development fronting promenade. He was of opinion that to erect ranges of buildings whether of substantial size and height or not along the landward side of the promenade would be bound in his view to detrimentally affect open character that exists and which would be likely to be enhanced by future removal of existing buildings such as fishing club huts and associated boat storage facilities. Point should be made that appeal related to development which was parallel to promenade, whereas current proposal involves development at right angles to promenade having north/south orientation.

Current proposal has benefit of removing several buildings along Esplanade frontage, thereby opening up this area directly in front of existing bowling green. Principle of single storey pavilion building has been established on this site by issue of 1995 approval. Main issue therefore turns on two storey element being proposed, the appropriateness of this scale in this location, its impact on character of Conservation Area and proposed design of building itself.

Design of building itself is relatively simplistic, whilst two storey element is confined to promenade frontage, it is not considered when viewed in context of overall building mass that two storey element will fundamentally adversely impact on this particular section of the Esplanade and would to some extent provide focal point with building being utilised for related ancillary purpose (Harbour Master's office). It should also be noted that proposed building would help to significantly shield existing amusement park buildings which do not reflect character or detailing of buildings in immediate locality.

In view of comments made above, it is considered and on balance that advantages of scheme in offering purpose built replacement facilities opportunity to remove existing substandard buildings, allowing opportunity to open up seafront by reorientation of buildings and the resultant effect of screening of amusement buildings, proposal is acceptable and it is not felt that the introduction of two storey element will set precedent for applications of a similar scale in this location.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in the Evaluation section of this report, it is considered that on balance development will not adversely impact on character or appearance of Conservation Area and construction of replacement building offers significant benefits to immediate locality. Development is therefore considered to comply with Policies B6, D1 and L2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Within two months of the completion of the clubhouse hereby approved, the existing pavilion, kiosk and outbuildings on the Esplanade frontage shall be removed entirely from the site and land reinstated in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.

33.	TCP/22282/A P/01581/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North West Registration Date: 18/09/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593 Renewal: detached house with integral garage (revised plans) and rear of The Dolphins, Augusta Road, Ryde, PO33

Representations

Three letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Detrimental effect on character and appearance of Conservation Area.

Too close to Victorian houses to maintain a sensible balance between old and new dwellings.

Proposal would result in loss of trees, with consequent effect on landscape, wildlife and environment, in particular coursing water running down road.

Inadequate drainage system in locality.

Land instability and flooding.

Inappropriate increase and safety of traffic movement.

Request to give fresh consideration to area as a whole.

Overlooking of nearby properties.

Difficult to understand consistent policy given refusals in front gardens in area.

Conditions changed since original approval.

Dwelling too big and high for plot.

Evaluation

Application relates to Pelhamfield Estate which is situated north of Spencer Road and served by Augusta Road and Sea Close. Site is presently amenity space for The Dolphins, formerly known as St Anne's Cottage which is property which fronts Ryde West Sands and has benefit of substantial curtilage.

Outline planning consent was granted for detached house and garage in May 1996. Following Committee, Members wished to be assured that Southern Water raised no objection regarding drainage of site. This was duly confirmed in writing and formal decision issued on 24 June 1996.

Full permission granted subject to conditions in October 1997 on identical plot subject of previous outline consent. Permission is due to expire in October 2002 and this application seeks renewal of the detailed consent. Plot itself measures some 20.5 metres wide by 30 metres deep. Building has minimum distance of approximately 3 metres from western boundary and 3.75 metres from eastern boundary. Building will incorporate study, kitchen/dining room, lounge and store room at ground floor level with four bedrooms and bathroom above. Proposal also incorporates detached garage situated in the south western corner of site served off existing vehicular access in Sea Close which will be slightly repositioned.

Main planning considerations are policy, adequacy of plot size, appropriateness of proposal in terms of impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area and whether there have been any changes in policy since the 1997 approval.

Policy D1 of IW Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure new development wherever possible enhances quality and character of built environment. Policy H5 states that infill residential development within development envelopes will only be approved where they will not unduly damage amenity of neighbouring property and surrounding area.

This site is slightly smaller than immediately adjoining plots. However, it is considered that site offers sufficient curtilage to provide appropriate setting and space for detached dwelling. Application site is relatively substantial distance away from properties which front Ryde West Sands and it is considered that siting of dwelling would not have any undue adverse effect on surrounding residential occupiers by reason of loss of privacy or over-dominance, particularly given lack of windows in eastern elevation of proposed dwelling.

Any development of this site would result in loss of some smaller trees/shrubs. However, it is important to appreciate that mature trees around boundary of site are shown to be retained, including impressive tulip tree to rear of site. Members are advised that site itself is subject to Group Tree Preservation Order.

In view of above, I do not consider that current objections raise issues not considered in the previous application. I consider that proposal complies with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which places duty on Local Planning Authority to protect or enhance Conservation Areas. I do not consider that development of site will have any undue adverse impact on status of Conservation Area. Locality has been characterised by various examples of post-1960 development and proposal is seen to be consistent with previous approvals.

In view of above comments, I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval (revised plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Boundary details - M33
3	The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of two parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purpose. Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development including site clearance shall commence on the site until all (trees/shrubs and/or other natural features), not previously agreed with the Local Planning Authority for removal, shall have been protected by fencing or other agreed barrier (along a line to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority/such as to enclose all parts of the land hatched green on approved drawing no ...). Any fencing shall conform to the following specification: (1.2m minimum height chestnut paling to BS 1722 Part 4 standard, securely mounted on 1.2m minimum above ground height timber posts driven firmly into the ground/or 2.4m minimum height heavy duty hoardings securely mounted on scaffold poles, or other method of agreed protection which forms an effective barrier to disturbance to the retained tree). Such fencing or barrier shall be maintained throughout the course of the works on the site, during which period the following restrictions shall apply: (a)No placement or storage of material; (b)No placement or storage of fuels or chemicals. (c)No placement or storage of excavated soil. (d)No lighting of bonfires. (e)No physical damage to bark or branches. (f)No changes to natural ground drainage in the area. (g)No changes in ground levels. (h)No digging of trenches for services, drains or sewers. (i)Any trenches required in close proximity shall be hand dug ensuring all major roots are left undamaged. Reason: To ensure that trees, shrubs and other natural features to be retained are adequately protected from damaged to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No works shall be carried out in close proximity to the existing (preserved) trees either underground or on the surface including the lighting of bonfires, storage of building materials and excavated soil and location of site huts which would adversely affect their retention. Reason: To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained on the site and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No trenches for services or drains shall be sited within the crown spread of any trees that are to be retained on site. Reason: To protect the health and stability of the trees to be retained on the site and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a surface water drainage system shall be connected to the combined mains drainage system. Reason: To ensure the site is adequately drained and to comply with Policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Submission of samples - S03
9	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
10	The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of two spaces for the proposal, two spaces for the existing property 'The Dolphins' including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking provision.

Representations

Application as originally submitted for provision of pitched roof with four additional flats in roof-space attracted letters of objection from Freshwater Parish Council, Julia Margaret Cameron Trust, Freshwater Bay Residents Association, residents of six properties in Terrace Lane and three in Gate Lane. Objections were on the grounds of over-development, inadequate car-parking, private access, design and appearance out of character with area, which is AONB.

Highways Engineer recommended condition regarding retention of car-parking, should application be approved.

Following protracted negotiations, revised plans were received showing amendments to the front elevation, enclosing the access stairs, amending the fenestration and detailed design of the proposed pitched roof, providing one additional parking space and reducing the number of flats from four to two. Following re-advertisement of this revised plan on the 5 and 12 October (the first advertisement erroneously referred to four flats in the roof space), further objections have been received from Freshwater Parish Council, Julia Margaret Cameron Trust, four previous correspondents and occupiers of three additional properties in Terrace Lane/Gate Lane all objecting on same grounds as previously.

Evaluation

Site is a two-storey flat roofed building containing eight flats at the rear of a bungalow fronting Terrace Lane, which is on the south west side of Gate Lane, west of Freshwater Bay. There is an access drive to the south west of the bungalow leading to a small parking area which serves the flats, which are at a slightly higher level. The top floor of the flats, with its flat roof, is visible above the bungalow between the two-storey Victorian properties which face south east onto Terrace Lane. All these properties are visible when approaching Freshwater Bay from the east along the Military Road, and from Gate Lane between Freshwater Bay and its junction with Terrace Lane.

The building in question was approved in 1964 as a two-storey block of holiday flats without restrictions as to occupancy. In February 1998, a Lawful Development certificate was issued confirming that the use of the flats for permanent residential occupation would be lawful.

Access to upper flats is presently via an external staircase at the south east corner of the building leading to a gallery at first floor level. Current proposal is to replace the flat roof of the building with a pitched roof within which would be formed two flats, each of two bedrooms. Two access staircases would also be provided on the front elevation, both now enclosed in brickwork and giving access to the gallery serving the first floor flats and also to a new gallery formed on the south eastern elevation between the two stairways serving the top two flats. Each staircase enclosure would be finished with a pitched gabled roof and the entrances to the two second floor flats and the bedroom windows would be gabled with decorative barge boards to reflect the character of the Victorian properties on either side. A structural engineer's report has been submitted with the application to confirm that the building is capable of supporting the additional loads created by the construction of the new roof and accommodation.

Determination of this application turns on the following issues- policy, access and parking, overlooking, ability of the site to accommodate the increased number of flats proposed and design/appearance in the landscape.

The following UDP policies are thought to be relevant. S1 (New Development in Existing Urban Areas); S4 (Countryside Protected from Inappropriate Development); S6 (Development of High Standard of Design); S10 (Conserve or Enhance Special Character of Designated Areas); S11 ( Reduce Reliance on the Private Car); G4 (Criteria for New Development); G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements); D1 (Standards of Design); D2 (Standards for Development Within Site); D11 (Crime and Design); H7 (Extension and Alteration of Existing Properties); C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty); C4 (Heritage Coast); TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) and TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines).

In general terms, whilst outside the development envelope, proposal for two additional flats in this extended property is of small scale, ancillary to the existing housing and therefore does not contravene Policy G5 or H5. The reduction in the number of proposed flats from four to two is relevant in this consideration.

As far as access is concerned, Terrace Lane is an unmade private access road and Highways Engineer has not identified any highway safety considerations as far as any marginal increase in use of the lane, or more importantly its junction with Gate Lane is concerned. There is therefore no breach of Policy TR7.

The question of over-development and lack of parking has been raised in Representations, particularly by the Parish Council, and an additional parking space has been provided within the revised plans. One space is provided for each flat, together with a visitors lay-by immediately outside the main entrance. Turning of vehicles is possible within the site and the parking area is screened from adjoining properties (particularly the bungalow to the east) by substantial hedges and natural growth. The two flats proposed are two-bedroom, whilst the eight existing are one-bedroom. Under UDP guidelines therefore twelve parking spaces, plus three for visitors, is the maximum allowable provision. As the site is within Parking Zone 4, a provision between 0% - 100% of the guideline figure will be acceptable under the UDP. Highways Engineer raises no parking issues, other than the need for a condition to ensure that the parking proposed is retained and therefore there can be no objection on this ground. There is little specific amenity space for the existing flats at the site, and in my view the provision of two additional flats will not result in an intensification of use of the site sufficient to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds. I therefore consider that a refusal on grounds of inadequate parking or over-development could not be sustained.

Overlooking and loss of privacy have been raised as issues in Representations and must be taken into account. The property is to the rear of buildings fronting Terrace Lane and the original proposal for two open external staircases giving gallery access to the upper flats was considered unacceptable in this location. Revised plans now show the staircase areas enclosed; the balconies, living room and second bedroom windows which would look east at this higher level are not thought significantly to impact on properties fronting Terrace Lane, because of the heights involved and the boundary screening which exists.

To the rear (north west) main bedroom and kitchen/dining room windows are proposed in gable features and dormers and whilst these would look towards the rear of "Bakers Farm" the distances involved are substantial (45 metres between buildings) and no loss of privacy sufficient to warrant refusal is anticipated. Whilst there are properties to north east and south east, the only second floor openings which would affect these are one roof light in each roof slope, each serving a bathroom. Overall therefore, the proposal is thought to accord with Policy G10 of the UDP and refusal because of impact on adjoining properties is not thought to be sustainable.

The existing building is clearly visible above the bungalow (Stoners Cottage) from the east. The site is flanked on either side by substantial two and three-storey Victorian properties and the bungalow and the flat roofed flats behind are clearly out of character with their surroundings. The proposal to add a pitched roof, with appropriately designed gables and dormer features will in my view be a significant improvement in the street scene. The design will reflect that of the older properties adjoining and will not project above the backdrop of trees against which the site is scene from the east. From the west, particularly the public footpath to the west of Bakers Farm, the additional height in its traditional pitched roof form will not appear an alien feature and will not be over-dominant in the landscape. My view is therefore that the proposal accords with Policies G4, D1, D2, C2 and C4.

Reason for Recommendation

Taking into account the material considerations identified earlier in this report, I consider that the proposal will not lead to over-development of the site, will offer adequate car-parking, will not lead to unsustainable levels of loss of privacy or overlooking and will result in a substantial improvement in the appearance of the building both in isolation and in terms of its contribution to the character of the surrounding countryside which is designated as of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	Retention of parking - K08
4	The two additional flats hereby approved shall not be occupied until the area shown for car parking purposes on plan no. 2023/02 Revision B attached to and forming part of this decision notice has been drained and surfaced in accordance with details submitted to and approved in advance by the Local Planning Authority and that area shall be marked out for car parking purposes in accordance with that plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate off street car parking provision.

35.	TCP/23145/E P/01970/01 Parish/Name: Brighstone Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 13/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Detached house with double garage, (revised scheme) land adjacent Berry Barn Farm, New Road, Brighstone, Newport, PO30

Representations

Brighstone Parish Council comment that whilst two of the reasons for refusal of the previous application have been addressed, namely size and materials, there still remains the third which is that the site is outside the development envelope. However, they comment that other properties have been built outside the envelope and it could be said that current proposal is merely infilling of spare piece of land. Parish Councillors question whether the UDP supercedes the village envelope and if this application is accepted, is a precedent set for future development. Council is happy that the dwelling and garage are more in keeping with the area and surrounding properties compared with the original application and on this basis have no objection. Their concern is that it is outside the village envelope. Nevertheless, they resolved on the casting vote of the Chairman to raise no objection.

Highway Engineer's comments are awaited.

One letter received from an Island resident objecting to proposal on grounds that Brighstone is losing its charm as a rural village due to the building taking place. Proposal will continue the steady decline of Brighstone into an urban estate. The objector comments that the buildings are not for first time buyers and there is no justification.

Evaluation

Application relates to triangular shaped area of land located on eastern side of New Road approximately 120 metres south of its junction with Main Road, Brighstone. Site is relatively level and enclosed for most part by natural growth.

Planning permission for detached house with double garage was refused in August 2001 for the following reasons:

1. The site lies in a rural area outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of residential development, would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area and therefore contrary to Policies S1, S4, G1, G2, G5 and H9 of the IW 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 prejudicial to the character of the area by reason of the scale, design and appearance of the dwelling and would be contrary to Policy C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed dwelling by reason of its scale, design and appearance, would be intrusive, out of keeping with the neighbouring dwellings as well as having an adverse affect on the visual amenities of the locality, contrary to Policies S6, G4, D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Current application seeks planning permission for detached house with double garage. Submitted plans show dwelling of different design from that previously proposed and construction of a detached double garage, rather than being attached to the house.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether design of dwelling now proposed overcomes objections relating to impact of development on character and amenities of the general locality.

Site is shown on IW Unitary Development Plan to be outside development envelope for the Brighstone area and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Dwellings and barns located immediately adjacent and to south of application site are Grade II Listed Buildings. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, 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 will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the plan by development envelopes. Land outside these boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development. Planning applications for new development will be permitted where they comply with the criteria set out in the policy which, in general, seek to protect the environment and character of the area.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy provides details of proposals which may exceptionally be permitted outside defined settlements.

D1 - Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment.

B2 - Proposals which adversely affect the appearance, setting and/or curtilage of a Listed Building will not be permitted.

H9 - Policy provides exceptions where development may be permitted outside development envelopes, including the acceptable infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage or group of houses.

C2 - Within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and comply with the criteria set out in the policy.

Plans which accompanied previous application showed dwelling of relatively substantial proportions, which included large conservatory and attached double garage, which was considered to be totally out of keeping with dwellings in the immediate locality and, in particular, the Listed Buildings located immediately adjacent and to south of application site. Previous proposal involved construction of dwelling providing accommodation comprising entrance hall, lounge, dining-room, kitchen and utility room, conservatory and double garage at ground floor level with three bedrooms at first floor, one including en-suite bathroom and dressing room, bathroom and store. Dwelling as detailed on the plans would have ground coverage of approximately 171 sq. metres, including the conservatory and double garage.

Current proposal represents revised scheme involving a dwelling of proportions which are considered to be more in keeping with the immediate locality. In addition, garage has been separated from house and located at northern end of plot thereby assisting in reducing overall scale and mass of the building. Ground coverage of dwelling, excluding the garage, is approximately 89 sq. metres, representing a significant reduction to that previously proposal. Accommodation provided would comprise entrance hall, lounge, dining room, kitchen and utility room at ground floor level with three bedrooms, one with en-suite facilities, and bathroom at first floor level.

In terms of the revised application, the Conservation Officer considers that the plans show a building relating much more to the scale of the village housing particularly the new properties to the south and that the general scale is more acceptable. He considers that the chimney is now in proportion to the house and that the separation of the garage has assisted in reducing the mass of the building. He considers that the design of the building could be further improved by reducing the four dormers to the rear and comments that the arching of the lintels is only valid if the windows below reflect this style. Of most importance, the selection of materials here is paramount, given the Listed Buildings alongside. It is also suggested that retention of the existing hedgerow would be crucial in integrating the building into the landscape and providing a visual mask for the Listed Buildings. Not withstanding these observations, he considers that the design is greatly improved and that refusal of the application on design grounds is unlikely to be sustainable.

Whilst it is considered that alterations to size and appearance of dwelling have largely overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application in respect of design considerations and the effect of the development on the character and amenities of the locality, site is still located outside the development envelope for the Brighstone area and there remains an objection in principle to residential development on the site. In this instance, I do not consider that site is located within a built up frontage and, having regard to the pattern of development in the immediate locality, I am not satisfied that proposal represents acceptable infilling. Therefore, there is considered to be no justification to allow development of the site for residential purposes.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that development of site for residential purposes as proposed is contrary to policies of the IW Unitary Development Plan. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons:

1

The site lies in a rural area outside the designated development boundary and the proposal, which comprises an undesirable intensification of residential development, would be prejudicial to the rural character of the area which is 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. In consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policies S1, S4, G1, G2, G5, H9 and C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Representations

Shanklin Town Council object on grounds of over-intensive use of the site and inadequate access.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Six letters of objection from local residents on grounds of inadequate drainage for both storm and foul sewers; inadequate access especially for emergency and service vehicles; inadequate parking; excessive density and overlooking and loss of privacy.

Evaluation

This is the second application which relates to two blocks of two storey buildings, formerly garages separated by a forecourt; two storey buildings constructed in brickwork with slate roofs. Site is located off Brook Road on its western side behind those semi-detached properties which front the west side of Brook Road and access over a narrow access drive. The site is roughly 17 metres square with two blocks on the east and west boundaries. As existing, they have garage doors and some first floor windows all fronting into the site.

In September 2001 an application seeking consent for the conversion of the workshop/garages into five houses was refused on grounds of overdevelopment and excessive density.

It is now proposed to convert the larger western block into two units each comprising living room, kitchen and utility room on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom on first floor. The block on the eastern side is also proposed to be converted into two units each comprising living room and kitchen on ground floor with two bedrooms and bathroom on first floor. Configurations are however different in plan form.

The west block is proposed to be converted by infilling the garage doors and erecting internal partitions. All windows are shown to face into the courtyard, with the exception of roof lights in the first floor, one to the bathroom in each unit and one as a secondary light to the main bedroom.

The eastern block is proposed to have most of its windows facing into the courtyard, except the southern unit and will have first floor windows in the southern elevation over the access drive and a kitchen window and patio door facing into a small private courtyard located on its eastern side. It is proposed to use secondhand and matching bricks to infill the openings and otherwise to carry out the alterations to the walls.

As before, determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, density, standard of accommodation, effect on adjoining properties, access and parking and matters relating to drainage.

Site is located within the development envelope surrounded by residential property and therefore, the land use proposed is acceptable. This revised proposal seeks to provide four units of varying accommodation and the plan also shows that the courtyard will be subdivided to provide some amenity areas for each unit and provide only pedestrian access with no parking or turning facilities retained. Although the courtyard is accessible at present, it would not be feasible to allow even for one parking space per unit since provision of four car parking spaces and turning would not be practicable.

In contrast to the previous scheme, kitchen areas would now have daylight and each bedroom would have a proper window as opposed to some only with roof lights in the previous proposal. However, there is a distance of approximately 9 metres from the nearest adjoining property fronting Brook Road; the two blocks of dwellings would be between 5.5 and approximately 6.5 metres apart fronting each other, but with the reduction in numbers of units by one, this is probably now acceptable, especially if the forecourt is subdivided to provide some amenity space for each.

As with the previous application, in terms of access, the Highway Engineer suggests a condition be imposed in the event of planning permission being granted with the intention of closing off the existing vehicular access in accordance with a scheme to be approved which would still permit satisfactory emergency access to the premises. This could be done by inserting a collapsing bollard or bollards which could be overrun in the event of an emergency, but which will effectively stop vehicular access to the units. Furthermore, the subdivision of the courtyard will further discourage access.

Highway Engineer points out that the site falls within Zone 2 of the Unitary Development Plan parking policy and as such should have between 0 and 50% of full guidelines parking, concluding that in his opinion, no car parking should be provided retaining access for pedestrians only.

Turning to drainage, the site presently comprises buildings and a hard forecourt area. Accordingly, surface water run-off will not be changed by the conversion, although it is acknowledged that the introduction of four residential units will result in foul sewage generation.

In summary, I consider that the reduction in number of units on this site by one and the additional changes to the scheme in respect of fenestration, the subdivision of the courtyard are now sufficient to warrant a decision to approve the proposal which will utilise now disused buildings providing four valuable units of residential accommodation, utilising land within the development envelope which will otherwise be described as a brown field site and recommend accordingly.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the material considerations in the Evaluation section above, proposed conversion to four units of accommodation is now considered acceptable and consistent with Policies H6, D1 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Matching materials - S01
3	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
4	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
5	Boundary details - M33
6	The occupation of the buildings hereby approved shall not commence until the existing vehicular access to the site from Brook Road has been permanently closed at a point which still permits satisfactory emergency access in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences on site. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Representations

Totland Parish Council raise no objection.

Highway Engineer makes no comment.

A letter of objection has been received from the Beach House, The Promenade, Totland, signed by four residents. A second letter of objection has been received from the occupier of the ground floor flat, the Beach House, Totland Bay. The following points have been made in the letters of representation;

The close proximity of the proposed beach hut to the Beach House.

It would create a nuisance and encourage "night-time travellers to sleep on the verandas".

De-stabilisation of the cliff leading to Turf Walk, due to the digging out of the cliff to accommodate beach hut.

The Coastal Environment Centre has made the following comments:

"It has been noticed that in order to meet the alignment of the existing huts, a small amount of the embankment may have to be removed. If this is the case, a retaining structure would be required to support and protect the embankment, this could be formed from timber posts and planking or a brick and concrete construction. It is not envisaged that a substantial amount of embankment would need to be removed for this purpose."

Evaluation

The site is approximately 6-metres south of the junction of Madeira Road and the Promenade. This is a seaside site that is accessed from the 6-metre wide concrete promenade to the west of the site which serves pedestrians, dwellings, premises and limited parking. The beach hut proposed is to be located within a flat grassed area within the AONB which is situated between the pumping station to the north and the Beach House, a large detached building divided into flats to the south. The grassed area currently accommodates five beach huts, two of which were granted permission in 2000 and 2001. One is slightly larger, but they are of a traditional design and colour, and constructed of timber shiplap boarding under felted roofs with open veranda styled fronts. Planning permission was granted in September 2001 for a further beach hut on the land south of the pumping station, a further Consent was granted in November 2001 for a beach hut on the land north of the Beach House, immediately adjacent to the proposal site. The grassed area is contained by low retaining walls approximately 0.25 metres in height above the promenade level. The land to the east at the rear of the site rises to Turf Walk which is public amenity land. The proposed hut is to be located at the foot of this rising land. The proposal before Members seeks consent to the siting of a beach hut on the land immediately north of the Beach House. A revised block plan indicates the various times of approval and the siting of the beach huts.

The site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but outside the development envelope. The area is within a traditional seaside setting and the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the surroundings so that traditional size and design of the beach hut proposed imitates that of existing beach huts. Pictorial evidence indicates that during the 1950's there were approximately 10 beach huts located on this site. Determining factors are considered to be visual appearance, whether the amenities of the residents of the Beach House will be unduly affected and the stability of the land that rises to Turf Walk and policy. Relevant policies from the UDP are considered to be G4, G5 and D1. G4 refers to general locational criteria for development and states that planning applications for new development will be permitted provided they harmonise with their surroundings and landscape, by using appropriate scale and design. D1 refers to standards of design and states that development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show good quality design and should respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area. Be sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, and not constitute over development leading to a cramped appearance and should include appropriate spacing between properties. G5 relates to developments outside defined settlements and states that development will be approved if small scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development.

The submitted plan indicates that the proposal will be approximately 0.9 metres away from the boundary wall of the Beach House. A total of 2.6 metres will exist between the southern wall of the proposed beach hut and the flank wall of the Beach House. Whilst it is appreciated that the proposal is close to the ground floor window and door of the Beach House, the area is currently overgrown. If this application before Members gains approval, the painting of the beach hut in a light colour can be conditioned, in order to minimise any adverse impacts which may result. I believe that the siting of another beach hut can be accepted without significantly affecting the amenities currently enjoyed by the existing beach hut occupiers or the occupiers of the Beach House, the ground floor flat in particular. I therefore consider that the proposal complies with the UDP Policies G4, D1 and G5.

In terms of the destablisation of the cliff leading to Turf Walk, due to the small amount of digging out of the cliff required to accommodate the beach hut, the Coastal Environment Centre consider that a retaining structure, possibly timber posts and planking, will be required to support and protect the embankment and indeed this can be conditioned. It is not envisaged that a substantial amount of embankment would need to be removed for the siting of this beach hut.

The five current beach huts at Totland Bay, and the recently approved two beach huts add character to the area. The siting of a further beach hut can only but enhance the vacant space that exists on the grassed area north of the Beach House. The siting of a beach hut clearly requires a coastal location and the proposal accords with Policies C2 and C3, regarding the AONB and development of the coast outside development envelopes. Members may note that the current beach hut proposal is set further forward of the rising cliff to Turf Walk than the existing beach huts.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report, I am in the opinion that the addition of one further beach hut of appropriate size and design in a seaside location is suitable. I am of the opinion that the beach hut will not have a significant affect on the amenities currently enjoyed by the neighbouring property occupiers, or the character of the area in general. Proposal therefore accords with policy

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Before the beach hut hereby approved is brought into use, the southern external wall shall be painted white and thereafter maintained in a flat colour unless an alternative colour is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Before work is commenced on site, details of any retaining structure required to support and protect the embankment behind the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such retaining works as are agreed shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to any other construction works on the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the stability of the cliff leading to Turf Walk.

38.	TCP/24421 P/01846/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 17/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Chalet bungalow with integral garage; vehicular accessland between St Johns Lodge and Green Haze, Appley Lane, Ryde, PO33

Representations

Highway Engineer's comments not received at time of preparing report.

One letter has been received questioning right for vehicle access over Appley Lane.

Evaluation

Application relates to rectangular plot of land having width of some 15 metres and average depth of approximately 20 metres situated between two bungalows at southern (top) end of Appley Lane which is itself a public footpath which leads from Appley Road to seafront. Application site, which formerly formed part of curtilage to adjoining property, has been fenced off on all boundaries and represents vacant site in between existing property.

Applications seeking consent for construction of detached bungalow were refused in December 1997 and more recently in May 1998. Reasons for refusal were inadequate plot size and development not preserving or enhancing character or appearance of Conservation Area.

More recent refusal was subject of appeal which was dismissed by Inspector in November 1998. In dismissing appeal, Inspector was of opinion that proposed dwelling on site would be clearly seen from lane and given small size of site, even modest dwelling would look cramped and poorly related visually to existing dwellings on either side. He considered that proposal would result in an overdeveloped site which would lead to area losing significant part of its present semi-rural charm. In his opinion, it was important to retain intimate sylvan character at entrance of this lane leading down to park. Proposal would have been contrary to this objective, as it would create a harder more urban appearance and character in this part of lane and Conservation Area. He concluded development would harm both character and appearance of this part of St John's Conservation Area.

Current application seeks to overcome previous reasons for refusal and comments of Inspector in dismissing latest appeal. Main changes involve increase in plot size by approximately 3 metres by 15 metres and introduction of chalet bungalow which seeks to reflect detail of some properties in immediate locality.

Details submitted with current scheme indicate chalet bungalow comprising integral garage, lounge, dining room, kitchen at ground floor level with three bedrooms above. Roof element would comprise cropped gables with small dormer window additions. Proposed dwelling would have minimum distance of some 4 metres to southern boundary of site and 2 metres to northern boundary of site where it abuts adjoining property known as Green Haze. Building line of proposed dwelling would also reflect adjacent property.

Main planning considerations relate principally to size of plot and effect of such development on character of St John's Conservation Area and whether or not revised scheme successfully overcome previous reasons for refusal and Inspector's criticisms in dealing with latest appeal.

Whilst extent of curtilage available within St John's Lodge remains as previous scheme, point should be made that land has now been sold off and permanently lost to occupiers of that dwelling. Plot width has been increased by moving boundary northwards nearer to property known as Green Haze which lies within ownership of applicant. Whilst situation results in loss of curtilage to that property, given extent of existing space around that dwelling, it is not considered to be sufficiently serious to warrant objection to scheme on this issue alone.

Whilst land has now been removed from curtilages of adjoining properties, it is considered that resultant plot size would reflect immediately adjacent development and whilst situation itself has to some extent been artificially contrived, I consider position has now been reached where development can be considered to be appropriate infill which, subject to design and amenity considerations, could be satisfactorily accommodated within this part of Conservation Area. Members will be aware of requirements of Section 72 of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require special attention to be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of such Conservation Areas.

In terms of design, street scene indicates dwelling of appropriate scale and whilst roof element is relatively heavy given slope of land northwards, ridge line of new dwelling would satisfactorily relate to adjoining property. Proposal seeks to reflect some features in immediate locality and proposed dwelling is more aesthetically interesting than previous schemes proposed for this site.

Development of this site as proposed would not unduly adversely affect amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and provision is made for turning within site in front of integral garage.

Whilst fully appreciating comments of Inspector in dealing with 1998 appeal, I consider that amendments shown to plot size and design of building would result in development which would reflect density of immediately adjoining development and in visual terms represents appropriate infilling which whilst resulting in additional dwelling, would not in overall terms have appreciable impact on appearance and character of Conservation Area.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in the Evaluation section of this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed development will not detract from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or amenities of adjoining residential property and therefore accords with Policies D1, H5 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Notwithstanding the provisions of any current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no extension, building or structure permitted by Part 1, Classes A and E of the 1995 Order, as amended, shall be erected within the curtilage of the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
5	In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of five years from (the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use). (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work); (b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, a replacement tree shall be planted in the same place, or place to be agreed and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees to be retained in the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Boundary details - M33

39.

PNP/24441 P/01921/01 Parish/Name: Calbourne Ward: Brighstone and Calbourne Registration Date: 29/10/2001 - PNP 56 Days Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Prior Notification for telecommunications installation comprising 15m high lattice mast supporting 9 sectored antennae & one 600mm diameter transmission dish (overall height approx. 17m); associated equipment cabin & meter cabinet; compound fencing & access gate adjacent Sticelett Copse, west of, Rew Street, Cowes, PO31

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

One letter received from local resident objecting to application on grounds that site is close to a nationally rare meadow and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the approval of this application would further damage the natural look of the land in this already fragile environment.

Evaluation

Proposed site of installation is located on edge of field on southern side of Sticelett Copse, situated on high ground to southwest of Rew Street.

Installation would comprise a 15 metre high lattice mast supporting nine sectored antennae and one 600 mm diameter transmission dish. Installation would have overall height of approximately 17 metres, including antennae. Associated equipment cabin would be located at base of mast with length of 3.7 metres, a width of 2.5 metres and height of 2.8 metres. Installation would be situated within compound enclosed by 1.2 metre high post and rail fencing to be surrounded by landscaping. Additional stock proof fencing with height of approximately 1.1 metres would be erected outside the security fencing. Submission indicates that equipment cabin and mast would be fabricated in steel and finished in olive green colour.

The applicant is a Telecommunications Code System Operator granted a licence by the Government to build and operate a radio public service telecommunications network. The applicant benefits from extensive permitted development rights granted to them by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

In the case of proposals which would include the erection of a mast or tower up to a height of 15 metres or where it is proposed to construct or site an equipment cabinet with a volume greater than 2.5 cubic metres, it is a condition of the permitted development rights that the developer shall apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required to the siting and appearance of the development.

With regard to current proposal, I consider that installation satisfies criteria set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and the agent acting on behalf of the operator has been advised that the prior approval of the authority is required to the siting and appearance of the development in this instance.

It should be stressed that applications of this nature seek approval of siting and appearance only and factors which do not relate to these issues are not relevant to the consideration of the application.

The determining factors in considering the current application are whether the proposed installation would be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the amenities and character of the area and whether the technical constraints associated with this type of development and the obligations imposed on the operator by their licence outweighs any planning objection to the proposal.

Policy U17 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan deals with telecommunications facilities and is considered relevant to the current proposal. In accordance with the policy, when dealing with proposals for aerials, masts, dishes or other telecommunications or similar structures, the Council will need to be satisfied that the sharing of any existing installation is not technically feasible. Furthermore, within designated Areas of Landscape, Nature Conservation, Scientific or Historic Interest, such developments will not be permitted unless there is a compelling technical justification and no suitable site or sites outside the designation. Where no practical alternative location is available and a new structure is necessary, the Council will expect the site chosen and design to be visually technically the least harmful that can be achieved and that the facility will be made available for future sharing. Removal of apparatus on cessation of use will be required.

Other policies of the plan considered relevant to the current proposal are as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G4 - General Locational Criteria. Planning applications will be expected to conform with the criteria set out in the Policy which, in general, seek to protect the character and environment of the area.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy provides details of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside the defined settlements.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C4 - Within the defined Heritage Coasts of Hamstead and Tennyson, development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coastline.

C11 - When approving proposals for development affecting SINCS, RIGGS and local nature reserves or other locally identified designated areas, the Council will require the retention of management of the important wildlife habitats and features within and adjacent to the development site.

Advice and guidance on telecommunications development is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications." The guidance note highlights the benefits of modern telecommunications systems in terms of the local community and the national economy and the Government's general policy on telecommunications to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems together with its commitment to environmental objectives, including well established policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The guidance note acknowledges that telecommunications development may require particular locations in order to work effectively and that such locations may be prominent locations which pose challenges to policies for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality in urban areas. Therefore, Planning Authorities are encouraged to develop an understanding of the needs and technical problems of telecommunications development and are advised to take into account all material considerations and that applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modern telecommunications.

In addition, the Guidance Note offers advice on ways in which the impact of modern telecommunications development can be restricted to a minimum and states as follows:

"In order to limit visual intrusion, the Government attaches considerable importance to keeping the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts, and of the sites for such installations, to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. The sharing of masts and sites are strongly encouraged where that represents the optimum environmental solution in a particular case. Use should also be made of existing buildings and other structures, such as electricity pylons, to site new antennae."

Advice on the issue of mast and site sharing is also contained in Circular 4/99 "Planning For Telecommunications" and the Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures Code of Best Practice. In particular, the Circular offers the following advice:

"In considering alternative sites, an authority should be mindful of the potential impact on the local environment of development of those sites. This will be particularly important where an alternative site would involve the redevelopment of an existing mast for shared use. In certain circumstances, the shared use of an existing mast might necessitate an increase in the height, and therefore, the visibility, of that mast. Depending upon the characteristics of the location, site sharing as opposed to mast sharing may be more appropriate. A second installation located alongside or behind the principal installation may, for example, provide a more beneficial solution in environmental and planning terms."

Proposals of this nature invariably attract concerns regarding radiation safety and this is a matter which has been, and continues to be, the subject of extensive research. Members will be familiar with the advice in this respect. In particular, whilst it is accepted that the perceived health risk associated with this type of development is a material consideration when determining any planning submission for telecommunications proposals, in view of Government guidance, advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other associated bodies, and the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that mobile phones and the base stations pose a long-term public health hazard, it is one which I consider should be given appropriate weight and which would not presently provide a sustainable reason for refusal.

The findings of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) were published in May 2000 and the Government issued a press release in this respect. The group was commissioned by the Government to carry out a comprehensive assessment of existing research following concerns raised by the general public regarding the perceived hazards to health associated with telecommunications technology. On the issue of adverse health effects the group concluded that:

"..... the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines." (Paragraph 5.269 - Stewart Report)

The report does highlight some biological effects which may occur with mobile phone use, although these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. The report acknowledged that there is a need for further research and this formed part of the recommendations of the group. In particular, on the basis of the research carried out by the IEGMP, they concluded:

"..... that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential health effects, and that gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach." (Paragraph 6.39 - Stewart Report)

The group recommended that, as part of a precautionary approach, the guidelines for exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) should be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines. However, the group indicated that they were not convinced of the need to incorporate the ICNIRP guidelines into statutes as they are liable to change as more scientific information about the health effects becomes available.

On 16 March 2001, the DETR issued a news release providing details of changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts proposed by the Government following a public consultation exercise. The news release highlighted a range of precautionary actions taken forward by the Government including measures to ensure that all mobile phones and base stations meet the guidelines of ICNIRP for limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields which are tougher than the guidelines issued by the NRPB. In this respect, the news release indicated that mobile phone operators had agreed to ensure that all existing base stations meet these guidelines. In addition, they agreed that all planning applications for new development will be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance with ICNIRP guidelines.

On the issue of health, the Planning Minister stated as follows:

"It is the Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. I have outlined the measures being taken on a precautionary basis. In the Government's view, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority, in processing an application, to consider the health aspects further. This view will be reiterated in our revised Planning Policy Guidance."

The revised PPG8 was published in August 2001 which contains advice on taking account of health and public concern about mobile phone base stations and, in accordance with the statement made by the Planning Minister, includes a requirement that all planning submissions are accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines. The PPG also reaffirms the advice that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards.

With regard to current proposal, the application was accompanied by a statement confirming that the installation will comply with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Application was accompanied by information in support of proposal including computer predictions of the network coverage provided by existing installations and that which is likely to be achieved from the proposed installation. This information indicates that the area of Thorness, Rew Street, Northwood and the western edge of Cowes is without adequate coverage in order to enable the operator to meet all reasonable demands for the service, this being a requirement of the licence granted to them by the Government. The computer predictions indicate that the proposed installation would provide coverage a large part of this area. However, it is understood that, whilst the computer predictions take account of the topography of the area, they do not take account of buildings and trees which affect propagation of the signal and, therefore, provide an optimistic prediction of the network coverage being provided by existing installations and that which would be achieved from the proposed installation.

The lattice tower would be triangular in shape having width of approximately 1.5 metres at base tapering to approximately 850 mm at top of tower. Proposed site of installation is located immediately adjacent woodland with trees having height of approximately 12 - 13 metres which would provide screening to the installation when viewed from the north and also, to a certain extent when viewed from the east and west. Installation would be visible from sections of the main road between Thorness and Rew Street, particularly from the top of Rolls Hill to west of site. However, installation would be seen against the backdrop of trees within the adjacent woodland with only uppermost part of the tower and antennae projecting above the tree line. I consider that it is likely that distant views of the installation may also be achieved from section of Hillis Gate Road to south of site and Pallance Road to east. However, due to topography of area and trees and other natural growth within the locality, such views are again likely to be restricted to the uppermost section of the installation. I consider that, having regard to these factors and the open and relatively lightweight construction of the tower, together with the proposed colour finish, i.e. olive green, the installation is unlikely to have significant impact in the landscape. Three-phase high voltage cables cross the field within which the installation is to be located running in an easterly direction supported on substantial wooden poles with height of approximately 14 metres. These are quite prominent in the landscape and I consider that, having regard to their location and number, they are likely to remain more dominant in the landscape.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal which included details of alternative sites considered by the applicants prior to submission of the application in respect of the current proposal. These included an option to site-share or co-locate on a new installation at Dukes Farm, Rew Street, which was proposed by another operator. However, due to its relative exposure to the surrounding area and its coverage restrictions, this option was rejected by the applicant. In any event, the proposal by the operator to site an installation at this location was refused permission under the Prior Approval Procedure in June 2001. The proposal was refused on grounds that the installation would occupy a prominent elevated position and would be visually intrusive, particularly when viewed from Rew Street, and also on grounds that the Authority was not satisfied that sufficient information had been submitted with the application to demonstrate whether there was any practical alternative location and that the site chosen was visually and technically the least harmful that could be achieved.

In addition, an alternative site was considered adjacent the western side of Sticelett Copse, within the complex of farm buildings. However, the applicants agent comments that the relative exposure of the barn site to the stretch of Heritage coastline, to the west, resulted in the final selection of the site, the subject of this application, as it has greater natural shielding to aid in minimising the views of the structure from outside the farm area. In this respect, I would agree that the site adjacent the complex of barns would have been highly visible from the coastline and Solent west and northwest of the site. Whilst application site is located within the area designated as Heritage Coast, it is located on the easternmost edge of the area. Furthermore, I consider that the adjacent woodland would screen the installation from the coastline to the west within the designated area. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal will detract from the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coastline.

Following discussions with the Council's Assistant Ecology Officer, it is considered that whilst proposed site is adjacent a woodland designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, having regard to distance between the edge of the woodland and the compound to the installation, proposal will not adversely affect the ecology and special features of the area. Records held at this office indicate that the meadow of ecological importance is located on opposite side of copse to north east of application site.

In this instance, the centre of the target area is located to west of application site and to northeast of Pilgrims Park. This is within the Heritage coast and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In accordance with the Council's Policies in respect of telecommunications installation, a site at this location may only be considered as a last resort when the Authority has been satisfied that there is no suitable site or sites outside the designated area and there is a compelling technical justification. Furthermore, having regard to the topography of the land along this stretch of coastline, an installation in this position would be unlikely to provide coverage to the eastern part of the target area, including the area of Rew Street and western edge of Northwood. In this respect, the applicants agent comments that the site chosen, on the apex of the hill, will enable the installation to achieve greater than expected coverage, including part of the area of Northwood, and as a result, should reduce the need for additional sites in this area. However, the need for additional sites would obviously depend on demand for the service and any need to provide greater capacity on the network. In this instance, I am satisfied that there is no existing installation or structure within the locality on which the applicant could install its equipment. Therefore, I am satisfied that an additional structure is necessary.

Reasons for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that installation will not have significant impact in the landscape or detract from visual amenities and character of locality. Furthermore, information which accompanied application included confirmation that installation would operate within ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields and I consider that applicant's agent has complied with measures specified in the newly revised PPG8 in this respect. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal conflicts with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Part 24, Class A to Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).
2	Prior to the development hereby approved commencing on site, details of the size and species of the trees/shrubs to be planted between the compound fencing and barbwire fence, as detailed on the approved plan, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details during the first planting season following the substantial completion of the installation or by such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which die during the first five years shall be replaced during the next planting season with trees/shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance from this permission shall be removed on the land on which it is situated as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunications purposes and the site shall be restored to its former condition. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policy U17 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

40.

PNP/24468 P/02018/01 Parish/Name: Shalfleet Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth Registration Date: 15/11/2001 - PNP 56 Days Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Prior Notification for telecommunications installation comprising 15m high monopole supporting 3 cross polar antennae & 2 microwave dishes; associated equipment cabin & meter cabinet; 1.8m high security fencing; 1.3m high stockproof fencing & access gates east of electricity sub station, adjacent copse, Warlands Lane, Shalfleet, Newport, PO30

Representations

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Evaluation

Proposed site of installation is located in southeastern corner of field located on eastern side of Warlands Lane, to south of village of Shalfleet.

Installation would comprise a 15 metre high monopole supporting three cross polar antennae and two transmission dishes. Installation would have overall height of approximately 17 metres, including antennae. Associated equipment cabin would be located at base of mast with length of 2.8 metres, a width of 1.6 metres and height of 2.9 metres. Installation would be situated within compound enclosed by 1.8 metre high security fence topped with barbed wire having overall height of approximately 2.1 metres. Additional stock proof fencing with height of approximately 1.3 metres would be erected outside the security fencing. Submission indicates that equipment cabin would be finished in light grey colour and mast would be fabricated in steel and finished in a colour to be agreed with the Authority.

The applicant is a Telecommunications Code System Operator granted a licence by the Government to build and operate a radio public service telecommunications network. The applicant benefits from extensive permitted development rights granted to them by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

In the case of proposals which would include the erection of a mast or tower up to a height of 15 metres or where it is proposed to construct or site an equipment cabinet with a volume greater than 2.5 cubic metres, it is a condition of the permitted development rights that the developer shall apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required to the siting and appearance of the development.

With regard to current proposal, I consider that installation satisfies criteria set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, and the agent acting on behalf of the operator has been advised that the prior approval of the authority is required to the siting and appearance of the development in this instance.

It should be stressed that applications of this nature seek approval of siting and appearance only and factors which do not relate to these issues are not relevant to the consideration of the application.

The determining factors in considering the current application are whether the proposed installation would be visually intrusive, to the detriment of the amenities and character of the area and whether the technical constraints associated with this type of development and the obligations imposed on the operator by their licence outweighs any planning objection to the proposal.

Policy U17 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan deals with telecommunications facilities and is considered relevant to the current proposal. In accordance with the policy, when dealing with proposals for aerials, masts, dishes or other telecommunications or similar structures, the Council will need to be satisfied that the sharing of any existing installation is not technically feasible. Furthermore, within designated Areas of Landscape, Nature Conservation, Scientific or Historic Interest, such developments will not be permitted unless there is a compelling technical justification and no suitable site or sites outside the designation. Where no practical alternative location is available and a new structure is necessary, the Council will expect the site chosen and design to be visually technically the least harmful that can be achieved and that the facility will be made available for future sharing. Removal of apparatus on cessation of use will be required.

Other policies of the plan considered relevant to the current proposal are as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G4 - General Locational Criteria. Planning applications will be expected to conform with the criteria set out in the Policy which, in general, seek to protect the character and environment of the area.

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements. Policy provides details of development which may exceptionally be permitted outside the defined settlements.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

Advice and guidance on telecommunications development is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 "Telecommunications." The guidance note highlights the benefits of modern telecommunications systems in terms of the local community and the national economy and the Government's general policy on telecommunications to facilitate the growth of new and existing systems together with its commitment to environmental objectives, including well established policies for the protection of the countryside and urban areas. The guidance note acknowledges that telecommunications development may require particular locations in order to work effectively and that such locations may be prominent locations which pose challenges to policies for the protection of high quality landscapes and quality in urban areas. Therefore, Planning Authorities are encouraged to develop an understanding of the needs and technical problems of telecommunications development and are advised to take into account all material considerations and that applications should not be refused on the basis of policies which take insufficient account of the growth and characteristics of modern telecommunications.

In addition, the Guidance Note offers advice on ways in which the impact of modern telecommunications development can be restricted to a minimum and states as follows:

"In order to limit visual intrusion, the Government attaches considerable importance to keeping the numbers of radio and telecommunications masts, and of the sites for such installations, to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the network. The sharing of masts and sites are strongly encouraged where that represents the optimum environmental solution in a particular case. Use should also be made of existing buildings and other structures, such as electricity pylons, to site new antennae."

Advice on the issue of mast and site sharing is also contained in Circular 4/99 "Planning For Telecommunications" and the Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures Code of Best Practice. Of particular relevance to the current submission, the Circular offers the following advice:

"In considering alternative sites, an authority should be mindful of the potential impact on the local environment of development of those sites. This will be particularly important where an alternative site would involve the redevelopment of an existing mast for shared use. In certain circumstances, the shared use of an existing mast might necessitate an increase in the height, and therefore, the visibility, of that mast. Depending upon the characteristics of the location, site sharing as opposed to mast sharing may be more appropriate. A second installation located alongside or behind the principal installation may, for example, provide a more beneficial solution in environmental and planning terms."

Proposals of this nature invariably attract concerns regarding radiation safety and this is a matter which has been, and continues to be, the subject of extensive research. Members will be familiar with the advice in this respect.

Whilst it is accepted that the perceived health risk associated with this type of development would be a material consideration when determining any planning application, in view of Government guidance, the advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other associated bodies, and the fact that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that mobile phones and the base stations pose a long-term public health hazard, it is one which I consider should be given appropriate weight and which would not presently provide a sustainable reason for refusal.

The findings of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP) were published in May 2000 and the Government issued a press release in this respect. The group was commissioned by the Government to carry out a comprehensive assessment of existing research following concerns raised by the general public regarding the perceived hazards to health associated with telecommunications technology. On the issue of adverse health effects the group concluded that:

"..... the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines." (Paragraph 5.269 - Stewart Report)

The report does highlight some biological effects which may occur with mobile phone use, although these do not necessarily mean that health is affected. The report acknowledged that there is a need for further research and this formed part of the recommendations of the group. In particular, on the basis of the research carried out by the IEGMP, they concluded:

"..... that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential health effects, and that gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach." (Paragraph 6.39 - Stewart Report)

The group recommended that, as part of a precautionary approach, the guidelines for exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields used by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) should be adopted for use in the UK rather than the NRPB guidelines. However, the group indicated that they were not convinced of the need to incorporate the ICNIRP guidelines into statutes as they are liable to change as more scientific information about the health effects becomes available.

On 16 March 2001, the DETR issued a news release providing details of changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts proposed by the Government following a public consultation exercise. The news release highlighted a range of precautionary actions taken forward by the Government including measures to ensure that all mobile phones and base stations meet the guidelines of ICNIRP for limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields which are tougher than the guidelines issued by the NRPB. In this respect, the news release indicated that mobile phone operators had agreed to ensure that all existing base stations meet these guidelines. In addition, they agreed that all planning applications for new development will be accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance with ICNIRP guidelines.

On the issue of health, the Planning Minister stated as follows:

"It is the Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. I have outlined the measures being taken on a precautionary basis. In the Government's view, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority, in processing an application, to consider the health aspects further. This view will be reiterated in our revised Planning Policy Guidance."

The revised PPG8 was published in August 2001 which contains advice on taking account of health and public concern about mobile phone base stations and, in accordance with the statement made by the Planning Minister, includes a requirement that all planning submissions are accompanied by a Certificate of Compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines. The PPG also reaffirms the advice that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards.

With regard to current proposal, application was accompanied by a written declaration that the installation will comply with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal. Applicants agent advises that an area of inadequate coverage has been identified around the Shalfleet area and a search has been carried out to find an appropriate location for a new installation. In this respect technical information has been provided in form of computer predictions of the network coverage provided by existing installations and that which is likely to be achieved from the proposed installation. This information indicates that the existing installations provide very little coverage in the locality. The operator must provide adequate coverage in order to meet all reasonable demands for the service, this being a requirement of the licence granted to them by the Government. The computer predictions indicate that the proposed installation would provide coverage within and around the Shalfleet area. However, it is understood that, whilst the computer predictions take account of the topography of the area, they do not take account of buildings and trees which affect propagation of the signal and, therefore, provide an optimistic prediction of the network coverage being provided by existing installations and that which would be achieved from the proposed installation.

They advise that the site, the subject of the application, was chosen after considerable investigation into possible alternatives in the area as it was felt that it affords the best coverage whilst having a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the site was chosen as it was understood that it does not lie within any designated area such as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Proposed site of installation is located immediately adjacent and to north of area of trees having height of between 13 and 15 metres. Therefore, these trees will provide a screen to the mast when viewed from the south and will also assist in minimising impact of the mast when viewed from the north, providing a backdrop against which the installation would be viewed. In addition, boundary of field to Warlands Lane is defined by relatively dense line of trees which will again assist in minimising the impact of the installation. Installation will be visible through gaps in the trees, particularly during winter months when they are not in leaf. Due to topography of area and trees and other structures in the locality, I do not consider that installation would be visible from the village centre of Shalfleet. It is likely that installation will again come into view when viewed from the area to the east of Shalfleet, and in particular the area around Shalfleet garage at the entrance to the village. Applicants agent comments that there is an electricity sub-station to west of the site with numerous poles carrying electricity cables in the vicinity. Therefore, they consider that mast would not be an isolated vertical structure but, if seen at all, would be viewed in this context.

Existing telecommunications installation erected by another operator is located some 22 metres to south of application site, on opposite side of trees. This installation comprises a 15 metre high lattice tower, supporting various antennae and associated equipment at base of mast. Applicants agent has considered the possibility of sharing sites, or locating on an existing building or other structures. However, given rural nature of the area, there are no buildings of a suitable height or design to accommodate a telecommunications installation. Consideration was also given to sharing the existing installation to the south but I am advised that this would require an increase in height by 5 metres in order to accommodate the additional equipment and provide the necessary vertical separation between the antennae systems. They considered that the resultant structure would be considerably more intrusive than a co-location as proposed. They also comment that the proposed mast also has the merit of being slimmer than the existing installation.

The upper section of the mast and antennae to the existing installation are visible from Shalfleet Garage to the east of the village whilst the lower section of the installation is well screened by surrounding natural growth. I consider that, if it were possible to install the applicants equipment on the existing mast without further modification, this would clearly be the preferred option. However, I would agree that an increase in the height of the mast would significantly increase its visual impact in the landscape and it would become more intrusive. Therefore, I consider that, in this instance and in accordance with the advice contained in Circular 4/99 on the issue of masts/site sharing, that the proposal to erect a second installation in this location would be less harmful than any redevelopment of the existing mast.

Reason for Recommendation

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that installation will not have significant impact in the landscape or detract from visual amenities and character of locality. Furthermore, information which accompanied application included confirmation that installation would operate within ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields and I consider that applicant's agent has complied with measures specified in the newly revised PPG8 in this respect. Therefore, I do not consider that proposal conflicts with policies contained in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Part 24, Class A to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).
2	Prior to the installation hereby approved being brought into use, the external surfaces of the equipment cabin and the monopole shall be painted and thereafter maintained in a dark green colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Reason: In the interests of the area and to comply with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Any apparatus or structure provided in accordance with this permission shall be removed from the land on which it is situated as soon as reasonably practicable after it is no longer required for telecommunications purposes and the site shall be restored to its former condition. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the locality and to comply with Policy U17 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

PART IV REPORTS - ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/9682B Fernhill House, Fernhill, Wootton

Summary

To consider whether or not the circumstances relating to the unauthorised construction of a new building justifies Enforcement Action being taken.

Background

Following a complaint alleging the construction of a wooden dwelling at the above site a visit was undertaken towards the end of July 2001. The site lies to the south of Wootton and is accessed off Fernhill, an unadopted roadway which has a junction to Station Avenue approximately 100 metres south of Lushington Hill traffic lights. The landowners property appears to consist of a bungalow and some agricultural outbuildings all of which are contained within what appears to have been a former walled garden of some 1.1 hectares in area.

On visiting the site it was apparent that a new structure was in the process of being erected at the lower eastern end of the landholding. Construction work was well advanced and a closer inspection revealed a two-storey wooden chalet structure which it has subsequently been alleged is intended to be let for holiday use.

At a subsequent meeting, one of the owners of the property acknowledged their error in commencing work without Planning Consent but expressed a desire to make an application with the hope of retaining it. In a letter dated 27 July 2001 the Council's Planning Policies were clearly set out and I would quote the following sentence:

"Whilst the Council is seeking to encourage tourism on the Island and is actively promoting farm diversification through the adaption of redundant farm buildings, I do not consider that this encouragement extends to the construction of a totally new building."

On that basis, I do not consider that an application to retain the building is likely to carry officer support.

Despite several reminders and confirmation that an application was imminently to be submitted an application was only received by the Local Planning Authority on 26 November 2001. The paperwork accompanying that application is claiming that the present building on site is a rural outbuilding that they wished to convert into tourism and holiday accommodation. Reference is also made to difficulties being experienced by the owners to run a viable agricultural business and that this proposal will help supplement income. The existing building on site is 100% new build and accordingly the papers submitted on 26 November 2001 are inaccurate. That planning application has in any event been returned as it was incomplete regarding the necessary documents to be registered.

Given the circumstances outlined above I believe that the owners have been given more than ample time to make an application if they so desired. The fact that the incomplete application that was submitted is attempting to claim that the existing new building is a redundant rural building leads me to believe that the Local Planning Authority's flexibility regarding this application has been misplaced.

Turning to the planning merits of the structure, the site lies within an area considered to be open countryside where the Council has basic planning policies seeking to protect landscape character (UDP Policy C1). Policy C15, which refers to appropriate agriculture diversification suggests that any proposal should be supported by a whole farm plan to show that the enterprise proposed will be well integrated with the existing operations and is likely to provide a long term source of employment and income to support the business as a whole. Policy C17 promotes the conversion of barns and other rural buildings for employment, recreation or tourism purposes subject to a number of criteria. However, this policy does not apply in this particular case as the building in question is clearly new. There are a number of policies in the plan in the tourism section which promote tourism (ie T9 (small scale rural tourism development)), but I do not consider that these over-ride the more fundamental principled policies of new build in the countryside.

Given the policy context as outlined above I believe that the construction of the new building even if the final end use is tourism related is contrary to policy and cannot be supported.

Financial Implications

None

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the building, the removal of the septic tank and the removal of all materials from the site. Time period for compliance 6-months.

2. To give the landowner further time in which to compile and submit a formal planning application seeking to retain the building.

Conclusion

It is now some 4 months since the original breach was first identified. The applicant was advised that the retention of the building was in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority inappropriate. Nevertheless, an indication was given at a very early stage that an application for its retention would be submitted supported by appropriate background information. Despite a number of assurances, the only documentation submitted to the Local Planning Authority was on 26 November 2001 and was indicating that the application related to the conversion of the existing unauthorised building. This application was incomplete and was returned to the agent. I am now concerned at the period of time which has elapsed and believe that the landowner should be given a clear opinion of the Local Planning Authority's view regarding this building. Although I acknowledge that a substantial sum of money has been spent I do not consider that this should unduly influence the Local Planning Authority's attitude on a building which is clearly contrary to the Unitary Development Plan Policies even if, as suggested its final use would be related to tourism.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I do not consider that the retention of the building can be encouraged and I recommend that the appropriate Enforcement Action is taken.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the building, the removal of the septic tank and the removal of all materials off site.

Time period for compliance - six months.

(b) G/23/1/U Unauthorised storage and residential use of caravan and agricultural land, at OS Parcel 7600, Whiteoaks Lane, Porchfield

Summary

To consider the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of any residential use, cessation of use of the land for the storage/parking of a caravan, together with its removal from the land.

Background

On 8 November 2001, an Enforcement Officer visited part OS Parcel 7600 at Whiteoaks Lane, Porchfield following receipt of a complaint that a caravan was being stored on the land. Close against the hedgerow on the southern boundary, towards the eastern end of the site, he found a touring caravan which had been painted a drab green colour. The Enforcement Officer took two photographs on site.

As no person was present at the time of his visit, the Enforcement Officer left a calling card on the step of the caravan as a result of which the owner telephoned him four days later. The owner said that he had purchased a plot of land on which the caravan was parked, and that he was in the process of purchasing a second plot. He stated his intention to start a wormery, and grow vegetables for sale.

A Planning Contravention Notice was served on the owner of the caravan to establish whether he owns the land, what his use of the land is, and what his intentions are.

The Notice has been returned, but it does leave some doubt as to whether the alleged owner actually owns it or is leasing it. It is confirmed that the caravan was brought onto the site in July 2001. He states that the caravan is used for storage, but admitted that he does use it occasionally at weekends for sleeping in overnight and furthermore that this was his intention in future. He is extremely vague about any intended crops to be grown on this land and any possible sales outlet.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications in relation to this matter.

Options

1. To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of residential use of the caravan and its removal from the land. Time to comply 3-months from when the notice takes effect.

2. To take no further action regarding the siting of the caravan on this land.

Conclusion

I believe there are two separate but related elements to this case. Firstly, the storage of the caravan on the land and secondly, the level of any residential use.

Regarding the first aspect, whilst an argument could be made for the placing of a caravan on land where it is used to support an agricultural activity on that land, at the time of the Enforcement Officer's site visit on the 8 November 2001, the only visible sign of any agricultural activity was the formation of one raised bed of approximately 1 metre x 2 metres in area and the commencement of a second raised bed. This is the sort of development that one would expect in a domestic garden or on a small allotment, not on a commercial agricultural enterprise. The retention of the caravan on the land would be contrary to the following policies within the Unitary Development Plan: Strategic Policies S4 and S10 Detailed Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character) and C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

At present, there is insufficient activity on the land to warrant the need for a caravan for storage purposes or any purpose ancillary to the use of the land.

The second element relates to the question over the residential use of the caravan. The owner has acknowledged that it is being used occasionally for accommodation. In addition to the above Unitary Development Plan policies H12 (Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans) and H9 (Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries) apply.

There is no justification for any residential use on this land and I therefore recommend that an Enforcement Notice be issued requiring the cessation of residential use and the removal of the caravan from the land.

This plot lies within a field which appears to have been subdivided into a number of parcels of land and are being sold off separately. On another section of the field, a planning application for two poly-tunnels and a portable storage building was refused in July 2001 and is now the subject of an appeal. I therefore propose that when this enforcement action is initiated the site identified relate to the whole field to avoid the caravan just being moved beyond this plot.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the relevant factors I do not consider that I can support the retention of the caravan and recommend accordingly.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of any residential use of the caravan, the cessation of the use of the land for its storage/parking and its removal from the land. Time to comply 3-months from when the notice takes effect.

M J A FISHER
Strategic Director
Corporate and Environment Services