PAPER C
SCHEDULE OF APPEALS
1. NEW APPEALS LODGED
TCP/19153G Mr M Pethick, against refusal for two storey extension to enlarge accommodation to flat at first floor and flat at ground floor, Norman Court, Quarry View, Camp Hill, Newport.
TCP/11117P Mr T W Booth, against refusal for variation of condition on appeal decision TCP/11117N to allow use of premises for the sale of hot food for consumption on or off the premises between 0800 to midnight Monday to Wednesday (inclusive), 0800 to 0230 Thursday to Friday am, Friday to Saturday am and Saturday to Sunday am, Flash Harry’s, Esplanade, Ryde.
TCP/9667T Island Care RBS, against refusal of outline for residential development, at Hosiden Besson site, Binstead Road, Ryde.
2. APPEALS WITHDRAWN
TCP/2817M Island Securities, against refusal for demolition of building; construction of three storey building to provide retail unit and restaurant on ground floor with six flats on first floor and four flats on second floor, 37 Pyle Street, Newport.
3. HEARING/INQUIRY DATES
No new dates to report.
4. REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS
(a) TCP/24154 Mr D S Campbell, against refusal for two polytunnels for agricultural growing and siting of mobile home for storage, at land east of 1 and 2 Wightoaks, Plot 1, Porchfield Road, Shalfleet.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 3 July 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 9 January 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the development on the landscape and appearance of the area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙
Whilst tunnels are typical of those commonly used for horticulture, they seem inappropriately utilitarian and out of place in this very rural traditional landscape.
∙ Protecting integrity of the landscape in an AONB is a material consideration, irrespective of the degree of public visibility.
∙ Hedge planting will take many years to screen the polytunnels and in this case would not relate to the existing pattern of the landscape.
∙ The proposed mobile home would add to the clutter of inappropriate elements within the landscape, would appear to be residential and would seem out of place in this setting.
∙ The development would detract from the appearance of the area and erode the distinctive landscape of the AONB and be contrary to UDP Policies C1, C2 and G4a.
∙ The proposals would make a negligible contribution to the rural economy and there are no material considerations which outweigh clear Development Plan policies which seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside.
.........................................................................................................................................................
(b) LBC/22065/M World Tree, against refusal of listed building consent for the retention of balustrading on roof to support planting, reinstatement of flag pole.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 10 June 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 22 January 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the proposed works would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The balustrade is prominent from many standpoints and obtrusive.
∙ The proposed foliage would appear manicured and artificial and impose a new and alien imaginary.
∙ The roof line makes a major contribution to the listed building and the balustrade does not preserve but harms the special architectural and historic features as would the proposed scheme.
∙ The decking on the roof by itself does not harm the appearance or the fabric of the tower and the addition of a flagpole would cause no problem.
∙ With relevant expertise, there is no reason why an elegant rail with imperceptible infill could not be produced in which any visual impact could be reduced to a minimum.
Application by Isle of Wight Council for an award of costs against World Tree
The Council submitted the appeal was unreasonable following a recent unsuccessful appeal in respect of substantially the same proposal.
Response by World Tree
The original appeal did not include the proposed planting. The Inspector had given time to allow for agreement and some form of modification. It was hoped that an acceptable scheme could be achieved.
Conclusions of the Inspector
The balustrade is unacceptable and covering up this obtrusive feature would be unlikely to render it acceptable and the appeal therefore had little likelihood of success. However, it is not clear that the unrepresented appellant realised the appeal had no realistic prospect of success. There were no discussions regarding planting or other methods of concealing the balustrade at the previous appeal and this does not indicate conclusively that all possible avenues associated with the balustrading had been explored. On this occasion, the appellant did not behave unreasonably in pursuing the appeal. Costs against the appellant were refused.
Application for costs by World Tree against Isle of Wight Council:
The appellant submitted he hoped the planting would satisfy all points of concern and the appeal would not have been necessary if there had been a better chance to discuss the application.
Response by Isle of Wight Council:
The Council did discuss the application and it was made clear the proposal was not acceptable. There was no further way to negotiate a further scheme.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
Whilst the appeal had little chance of success and the appellant was reluctant to remove the balustrade, it is unlikely further discussions would have enabled the appeal to have been avoided. There was no unreasonable behaviour by the Council and the application for costs against the Isle of Wight Council was refused.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(c) TCP/155G Mr A Button, against refusal for single storey extension to form annexed accommodation, at 45 Noke Common, Newport.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 3 September 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 28 January 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The proposal would consolidate the dispersed development pattern along Noke Common.
∙ The visual impact of the proposal would be similar to that of recently approved extension but the recently approved scheme shares accommodation and the entrance with the main dwelling.
∙ Proposal would have an independent entrance and it would be difficult to resist future applications to occupy the annex as a separate living unit.
∙ Approval of the appeal scheme could lead to an additional dwelling in the countryside which would be harmful to the character of the area and conflict with Development Plan policies.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(d) TCP/17646G Mr S Finch, against refusal for detached house and garage with access across the site of former church, land adjacent former Methodist Church, Brook.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal - 24 April 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 30 January 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area bearing in mind the site is within the AONB.
∙ Whether a satisfactory and safe vehicular access to the site can be provided.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The proposal would be more prominent from the lane and residential properties to the south than the permitted dwelling of the 1999 consent.
∙ The proposal would have an elaborate and fussy appearance and conflict with the Local Planning Authority’s Countryside Design Statement.
∙ The proposal would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to the natural beauty of the landscape in the AONB.
∙ Exit from the site from the front of the former chapel would be unsafe for drivers because visibility to the south would be severely restricted by a hedge and telegraph pole.
∙ Neighbouring occupiers have indicated they would refuse to co-operate with the development by denying access or agreeing to make improvements to visibility.
∙ It is unlikely a satisfactory vehicular access could be provided within the usual time limits for a planning permission and this could be harmful to highway safety.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(e) TCP/198H Charcoal Grill, against refusal to vary the condition to extend opening hours to 0230 on Saturdays and Sundays, at Charcoal Grill, 65a Union Street, Ryde.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal (Part 1).
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 22 August 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 30 January 2002.
Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ Whether the existing conditions remains necessary and reasonable to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents, having particular regard to noise and disturbance.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ Existing condition imposed on appeal does not permit sale of hot food beyond the hours of midnight.
∙ There are many flats above shops in Union Street and Church Lane is predominantly residential in character.
∙ The proposed extended opening hours could be disturbing to neighbouring residents at times when most people would expect to be asleep.
∙ The condition imposed in 1998 remains reasonable and necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents against late night noise and disturbance.
∙ To allow the appeal would conflict with UDP Policy G10.
..........................................................................................................................................................
(f) TCP/15656F GVL Management, against refusal for detached house, at land rear of 121 High Street, Ryde.
Officer Recommendation: Refusal.
Committee Decision: Refusal (Part 1) - 1 October 2001.
Appeal Decision: Dismissed - 30 January 2002.
Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:
∙ The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
∙ The effect on the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers, with particular reference to privacy and light.
Conclusions of the Inspector:
∙ The locality is intensively developed and the proposed development would give a cramped appearance.
∙ The appeal site plays an important role as an open space in an area comprising mainly buildings and associated hardstanding.
∙
The proposal does not meet the objective of PPG3 to create a high quality living environment.
∙ The proposal would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would conflict with UDP policies.
∙ The proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 29 bank Gardens with regard to privacy.
..........................................................................................................................................................
Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.