Agenda Item 5 (d)

Purpose : For Decision

Committee :    DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date :              18 FEBRUARY 2002

Title :              TCP/20360A - RETENTION OF ACCESS TRACK AND EXTENDED AREA OF HARD STANDING STORAGE OF MANURE, OS PARCEL 0042 OFF OAKHILL ROAD, SEAVIEW

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

To determine the above mentioned application in light of the applicant’s response to suggested negotiations.

BACKGROUND

Members will recall that this application has been considered on a number of occasions by this Committee. Members visited the site several weeks ago and confirmed that in principle the Committee, does not have any objection to the use of the site for agricultural purposes. However, Members did express concern about the nature and proximity of existing development adjacent to, or very close to, the northern boundary of the site where it abuts Flamingo Park which, as everybody knows, is a major tourist attraction.

The Committee held the view that the development in its existing form, providing sheltered accommodation for animals and fowl, is inappropriate and is having, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on the commercial use of the neighbouring properties due to odour, noise and surface water run-off. In the circumstances Members decided to defer consideration in order to enable negotiations to take place with a view to overcoming these particular difficulties.

In a letter to the applicant the Development Control Manager outlined the views of the Committee and recommended that he/she should undertake certain work in order to improve on the present situation and therefore substantially reduce any existing or potential impact on the neighbouring land.

•          The relocation of the existing buildings (ie the milking shed, field shelter and chicken shed) in a southerly direction away from the northern boundary of the site.

•          To relocate the access track in similar terms.

•          To erect a suitably designed stock fence parallel to and minimum of 3m away from the northern boundary of the site.

•          To landscape/plant the intervening space between the proposed stock fence and the northern boundary of the site.

•          To introduce certain measures to ensure that there is no surface water run-off onto adjacent land and that manure is removed from the site on a regular basis with only short term storage and no burning or spreading.

The applicant was invited to discuss the matter with the Development Control Manager and the Case Officer.

In reply the applicant has written in brief terms indicating that he wishes the application to be determined in its submitted form and that he does not agree with the allegations about inappropriate use pointing out that the site has a long standing agricultural use which far pre-dates Flamingo Park.

OPTIONS

1.        To grant conditional planning permission in accordance with the recommendations set out in the report submitted to the meeting of the Development Control Committee (Site Visits) on 7 January 2002.

2.        To refuse permission on grounds to be determined and specified by Members of this Committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Members deferred consideration of this application with the good intention of attempting to resolve what they discern to be problems relating to the agricultural use of this land and the consequent alleged effect on the neighbouring land which happens to be an important wildlife tourist attraction. I believe that the measures set out in this report, and also set out in the letter to the applicant, reasonably reflect the work that would be needed in order to bring about an improvement in the situation by the relocation and protection of various facilities on the application site used for the housing of a variety of livestock and fowl.

I anticipate that Members will be disappointed with the response from the applicant.

The applicant is now asking that the application should be determined. I would remind Members that this is essentially a retrospective application involving the following development:

•          Excavation along the western boundary of the site where it adjoins the public footpath to provide extended hard standing/pony paddock area.

•          Use of removed soil for construction of bund along eastern side of extended hard standing/pony paddock.

•          Construction of track along northern boundary of the site providing hard surfaced access to field shelter.

•          Identification of area for the storage of manure.

It is important to draw to Members attention that the buildings on the site have the benefit of a formal planning permission or, following earlier investigations, are immune from enforcement action given the date of their construction. It should also be noted that at the time of the Case Officer’s initial site inspection the applicant was advised of his concern regarding the rather untidy nature of the site, particularly in respect of storage of cars and play equipment not ancillary to the authorised use of the land. Since that inspection cars have been removed and applicants have advised that they intend to remove play equipment and seek to make general improvements to the appearance of the site.

While appreciating the concerns of adjoining landowners and the strenuous efforts on the part of Members of this Committee in order to overcome the alleged problems Members must appreciate that many of these concerns are either private disputes or matters which do not constitute material considerations when determining this particular planning application which, in my view, has minimal or nil impact on the activities of the neighbouring site providing there is no breach of the recommended conditions.

Contact Point :           Chris Hougham (Development Control Manager) ☎ 4565

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate & Environment Services

Agenda Item 5(d)

Committee :    DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date :              18 FEBRUARY 2002

Title :              TCP/23951A/P2143/01 - RETENTION OF DORMER WINDOW, SUNNYSIDE, STEYNE ROAD, SEAVIEW

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

To determine the above mentioned application following a request for deferment by the Local Member and agreed by the Development Control Manager.

BACKGROUND

This retrospective application was due to be considered by Members at the meeting held on 29 January 2002.

Members were advised that planning permission was granted in April 2001 under the delegated procedure for a roof extension to provide additional accommodation. The approved details showed provision of a pitched roof extending over an existing flat roof extension including a small dormer window on the rear elevation. The approved development has now been completed and although the roof extension itself is in accordance with the approved plans, the rear dormer has been constructed to a larger size and incorporates a small railed area with opening doors effectively forming a small balcony at the rear of the property. Members were asked to note that the balcony immediately abuts an existing flat roof above a rear extension.

The application now under consideration is for the retention of the rear dormer window as built, together with a small balcony area and railings.

There are five letters of objection, including one from the Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council. There is one letter of support for the application.

The application was recommended for refusal of permission.

Following consultations with the Local Member, it was agreed that the application should be deferred in order to enable the applicant/agent the opportunity to negotiate with officers to achieve a compromise solution.

OPTIONS

1.        To grant (conditional) planning permission with the appropriate conditions to be determined and specified by Members of this Committee.

2.        To refuse permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in the report submitted to the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 29 January 2002.

CONCLUSIONS

In my view the suggestion made by the Local Member was entirely reasonable which may have resulted in a satisfactory outcome. In accordance with the decision to defer consideration, a letter was sent to the applicant’s agent inviting him to enter into further negotiations with officers in order to reduce the impact of the structure and remove the unauthorised balcony, in order to ensure that the structure was more in keeping with the original approved scheme. The following response has been received from the applicant’s agent:

“…, I wish to confirm that following a meeting and advice from my Planning Consultant as to the action to be taken on this matter, I will be advising my client not to propose any changes to the dormer and that, whilst removal of the handrail would not constitute a serious problem to use, it would contravene the Building Regulations and is therefore not a practical solution.

It would be our intention to lodge two appeals following a refusal and an Enforcement Notice.”

I anticipate that Members will be disappointed with the response from the applicant’s agent.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the dormer window and balcony area, as now constructed, is visually intrusive and detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing properties and the designated Conservation Area contrary to the requirements of Policies D1, H7 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. I also consider that the provision of opening doors and the small balcony area at roof level would adversely affect the privacy and amenities of nearby residents contrary to the requirements of Policies D1 and H7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan. I therefore have no alternative but to recommend the application is refused and also to recommend that enforcement proceedings are commenced in order to remove the unauthorised dormer window and balcony and to ensure that the window is constructed in accordance with the previously approved details.

Contact Point :           Chris Hougham (Development Control Manager) ☎ 4565.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services

Agenda Item 5 (d)

Committee :    DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date :              18 FEBRUARY 2002

Title :              TCP/843G/P2004/00 - DEMOLTION OF GARAGE, DETACHED HOUSE WITH DETACHED GARAGE (REVISED SCHEME) (READVERTISED APPLICATION) 80 WELL STREET, RYDE

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

To determine the above application following a request from the Planning Committee to defer the determination of the application for further information.

BACKGROUND

This application initially went to the Development Control Committee held on 29 May 2001, but was deferred in order to obtain from the applicant’s agent a ground stability report and to carry out consultations with Building Control to determine whether ground within the application site is stable and suitable for development. At that time Members gave indication that the design of the proposed dwelling was considered to be acceptable.

At the Planning Committee of 16 October 2001 which included late representations from Southern Water and the Highway Officer Members further deferred the application in order to clarify the situation regarding a Highway Officer and his conversations with the Local Member.

Clarification of the conversation was received from the Highway Officer and this further induced me writing to the applicant requesting further evidence that the building’s construction would be appropriate for its location. The agent’s consultant chartered civil engineer wrote back explaining :

“My report did include my recommendations for a site investigation and the design of foundation and a prediction that a pile foundation will be the preferred option. A piled solution would not have been suggested if I had considered that slope instability was a significant risk. These matters are, in my opinion, a matter for Building Control supervision at the design and construction stage. They are not a matter that should affect a planning consent in a building zone first established a hundred years ago that has remained relatively stable every since.”

This information and the previous submissions were forwarded to the Council’s Coastal Manager, Robin McInnes and a meeting was arranged on site between the Local Member, the Coastal Manager, the Chief Building Control Officer and the East Team Leader.

Following a walk around the site and a subsequent investigation by the Coastal Manager, the Coastal Manager writes :

“Further to consideration of the ground stability report and associated correspondence and following our meeting on site, I am writing to confirm my opinion with respect to ground stability.

In the correspondence from Michael Craddock it refers to any responsibilities the Council may have for providing support for properties upslope of Quarry Road. Following the Holbeck Hall, Scarborough appeal, I can confirm that the Council has no responsibility for providing support for properties upslope of its land.

Although there are some signs of structural damage in the vicinity of the junction of Well Street and Quarry Road, I am not of the opinion that any of these relate to ground movement problems but are more a result of construction techniques and lack of maintenance. I believe that the proposed form of construction outlined in the report would be adequate for this development. I have made a careful examination of cracks and deformation in the adjoining roads and again, I do not believe that these are an indication of either shallow or deep-seated ground movement problems. I suspect that highway construction and historical drainage arrangements may have caused problems in the past and these have required repairs from time to time. In my opinion therefore, I do not believe the development will adversely affect ground stability in the area.”

OPTIONS

1.        To grant conditional planning permission in line with the report of the 16 October 2001.

2.        To grant conditional planning permission set out in the report of the Development Control Committee on 16 October 2001, but accompanying that decision expressing the need for appropriate foundations and the Committee’s concerns.

3.        To refuse the application on the lines that the surrounding land is unsuitable because of its instability to develop.

CONCLUSIONS

Quite clearly expert advice has been sought by the agent and this has been analysed by in-house expertise by the Coastal Manager. He concludes that the proposed form of construction outlined in the report would be adequate for this development. It is therefore my opinion that any refusal on the lines of instability would be unsustainable and would be unreasonable. Any subsequent appeal would run the risk of costs.

Contact Point :           Glen Hepburn (East Team Leader) ☎ 4575

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services