1. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OTHER THAN PART 1 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.

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each 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.

If you need to see a copy of any of the reports they can be accessed on the Isle of Wight Council Web Site :

TCP/00555/G P/01918/01 Parish/Name: East Cowes Ward: East Cowes North

Registration Date: 21/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

100 2/3, 4, 5 bedroom houses with garages/parking, access off Old Road, formation of estate roads, landscaping/open space (revised layout, increased density) (re-advertised application)

former Westlands Sports Ground, Old Road, East Cowes, PO32 6AW

Application relates to former Westlands recreation ground situated off Old Road and backing on to properties fronting on to the north western side of New Barn Road. Site which has an area of 3.2 hectares (7.9 acres) has the benefit of a recently constructed junction access off Old Road. It has heavily treed boundary along it's OId Road frontage with there being no other major landscape feature apart from sparsely located trees along the boundaries within the site.

Development is surrounded almost entirely in the form of large detached residential units within substantial plots particularly in terms of New Barn Road and the north eastern side of Old Road. Opposite site are similar established detached dwellings on slightly smaller plots. Old Road itself has varying carriageway widths with limited footpath provision.

Conditional outline consent granted February 1991 for residential development of sixty detached houses and garages.

In March 1994 approval of reserved matters granted in respect of sixty dwellings (thirty detached, twenty semi-detached and ten terraced) with garages and parking areas, modifications of site access and associated road works. Access which has now been partly constructed forms first part of this consent.

In May 2000 outline consent granted for seventy nine dwellings including formation of vehicular access and landscaping, traffic calming measures in Old Road between site and New Barn Road. That consent was subject of a Legal Agreement provided for two covenants as follows:

Within one year or before the twentieth unit on the site was constructed provision shall be made for the construction of seven units of affordable housing for rent in perpetuity elsewhere in the locality of East Cowes. Such affordable housing to be owned and rented by a registered social landlord.

To pay the Isle of Wight Council £12000 before first unit on site is constructed or by June 2000 towards traffic calming measures costs in Old Road. If such monies was not used towards traffic calming within three years then the money is to be repaid with interest.

In July 2001 approval of reserved matters granted for seventy nine houses, garages and access road etc. following the above-mentioned outline consent and covered matters of external appearance, design and landscaping only.

Full detailed consent is now sought for a residential development of one hundred units consisting of a range of dwelling types as scheduled below:

Six of the three bedroom units and five of the two bedroom units have been identified as being for affordable housing.

Units vary from being integral garaged to having separate garage and/or separate parking spaces. A total of twelve of the units are three storeys in height eight being in terraced form.

Although application does not provide details of the materials, the units to be constructed in the main in facing brick with elements of render under concrete tiled roofs which vary from gabled to hipped roofs.

Application indicates an extension of the existing access off Old Road in the form of a 5.5 metre wide carriageway with two 2 metre wide footpaths on either side. A 3.1 metre wide pinch point has been indicated approximately 20 metres off the junction point with Old Road. Road system then extends into the site in the form of 4.8 metre wide carriageway width roads with traditional footpaths on either side. This type of road layout is then replaced by shared surfaced cul-de-sacs (3) which are more informally laid out. In terms of the junction itself proposal does indicate a footpath returning to the north of the proposed access within the frontage width. South footpath is restricted to the radius of the junction with the remainder of that frontage being in the form of a grassed verge. Houses themselves have been set back off the Old Road frontage by approximately 10 metres minimum to 12 metres maximum with the area between the houses and Old Road being in the form of a open space area on which applicant has indicated retention of existing trees where they are set off the road, although all those existing trees which immediately abut Old Road are to be removed to ensure provision of a visibility splay. Visibility splay indicated on the submitted plan is 4.5 metres by 60 metres. Further additional planting has been indicated behind that visibility line within that open space area. The housing units themselves in relation to Old Road front that road with a service access creating a courtyard effect providing vehicular access to the individual units.

Within the site two further areas of open space are prominently located and form an intrinsic part of the overall layout. Also additional landscape planting has been indicated throughout the site.

Boundary treatments range from 1.8 metre high brick walls and close boarded fencing which is to be provided on the more prominent corner sites with other screen fencing being in the form of either close boarded fencing or larch lap fencing.

Parking provision varies dependant upon the size of the units ranging from four parking spaces for the five bedroom units to one parking space for the terraced units. Result is approximately 236 parking spaces including integral garages, an average of 2.3 parking spaces per unit.

In terms of ecology, application has been accompanied by a flora/fauna report summarised as follows:

Site has extremely limited value from a local wildlife point of view with that value being limited to the perimeter fence line.

Contributing factor to the lack of wildlife would appear to be the sites use for dog walking.

Consideration should be given to possibility of slow worms being present along perimeter of the site with the suggestion that any specimens collected should be removed to a suitable site nearby, with any such removal being subject to consultation with Council's Ecology Officer and English Nature.

If site clearance takes place during the forthcoming Spring season a consultant considers a check should be made of the trees and some of the bramble patches for nesting songbirds prior to earthmoving equipment being used on the site.

In terms of drainage, applicant has submitted extensive sets of plans indicating in detail the alignment of a proposed relief surface water sewer which is to be constructed from the site within Old Road to an outfall point adjacent to the existing sea-wall to the River Medina immediately to the west of GKN Westlands in the proximity of Columbine Road. New surface water sewer to be 225 mm in diameter at it's commencement point in Old Road increasing in size to 300 mm and then to 375 mm at it's outlet point. The new surface water sewer is not only required to service the proposed residential development but will also pick up existing connections along the route including the surface water system which currently serves Oaks Close and of course all existing gullies in Old Road. Members are advised that Old Road is currently served by a combined system and therefore the new surface water sewer will effectively take most of the surface water out of that combined system resulting in the existing sewer virtually becoming a foul sewer. Submitted details in respect of the site itself indicates that a new impermeable area of 1.5 hectares will be created as a result of the development with any attenuation required for such an area for the one in hundred years storm being 404 cubic metres. That attenuation is required to ensure a discharge rate of 7 litres per second per hectare can be achieved. At time of preparing this report the systems to be used to achieve that attenuation have not been fully calculated with the options being underground tanks, oversized pipes, or balancing ponds.

National Policies are covered in PPG1 - General Policies and Principles, PPG3 - Housing March 2000, PPG13 - Transport.

Promotion of sustainable development which seeks to deliver the objectives of achieving now and in the future economic development to secure high living standards whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.

Emphasis on the importance of design with Local Planning Authorities being encouraged to reject poor design inappropriate to their context or out of scale and incompatible with their surroundings.

Importance of town centres with objective being to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres and to maintain efficient, competitive and innovated retail sector.

Document emphasises the need for a plan-led system which is given statutory force by Section 54A of the Act which requires as an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

PPG3 - Housing March 2000. The aim of this important document is to encourage Local Planning Authorities to ensure residential developments provide everyone with an opportunity of a decent home by ensuring greater choice of housing, with particular reference to housing not reinforcing social distinction. The document emphasises the following:

Meet housing requirements of whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

Provide wider housing opportunity and choice 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 green field sites.

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities with specific density minimums being mentioned as follows:

"Encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 - 50 dwellings per hectare net)".

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

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between housing, jobs etc. and reducing the level of parking. More than 1.5 off street spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

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

Ensure deliverability of affordable housing with need for a mix of housing types with the amount of such housing being reinforced by full assessment of local housing needs. Document emphasises that such provision should be the subject of close liaison with housing departments and such procedure will be the subject of monitoring through Government's regional offices.

Availability of car parking has made an influence on choice of means of transport.

Car parking takes up large amounts of space on developments and reduces densities.

Local Planning Authorities should ensure level of parking in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices.

Encourage the setting up of maximum levels of parking and emphasise that there should be no minimum parking requirement for development.

Other supplementary national guidance is provided in the following documents, Places, Streets and Movements - a companion guide to Bulletin 32 Residential Roads and Footpaths published by the DETR - September 1998, By Design - Urban Design in the Planning System Towards Better Practice published by the DETR - May 2000, and By Design - a companion guide to PPG3. All these documents promote the need for good urban design which makes efficient use of land whilst at the same time providing a greater sense of place in community through innovated layout and use of range of dwelling types ensuring a wider range of income groups are able to satisfy their needs and be part of the housing ownership market.

Site is located within the development envelope boundary as defined on the IW Unitary Development Plan in respect of East Cowes. Site is allocated for residential development with the following policy statement applying:

In an area of 3.2 hectares being the former Westlands Sports Ground (which has now been relocated to Osborne). Outline application for sixty dwellings approved in 1991 with approval of reserved matters in March 1994 (development commenced).

Policy H1 - Major New Residential Developments to be Located Within the Island Towns.

Policy H2 - To ensure that large residential developments contain a variety of house sizes and types.

Members will be aware of the Housing Survey which has recently been carried out and which provides the Council with detailed information relating to Island wide housing needs. This document will enable the Council to establish where the emphasis should be in terms of housing policies and is therefore a valuable tool in justifying the encouragement of developers to provide a greater mix of house types in order to fulfill that need.

The document has identified a greatest need in the low cost market housing and particularly the affordable housing for rent. It makes the following statement:

"There is a need for low cost market housing and planning policies and site development we believe should continue to encourage more smaller dwellings to meet current needs and address the shortage of flats and terraced houses in the existing stock".

"The Town Council can see no justification for increasing the number of dwellings on the site..........

Since the Spring of 2001 the number of houses has increased from 75, then to 93 and currently to 100".

"I have made an initial inspection of the internal road layout and am satisfied that it is well advanced in terms of accommodating highway requirements subject to consideration of parking standards and individual plot layouts.

I do have some reservations regarding the main access to the site in terms of the geometry of the existing road, footway/cycle way provision; visibility splays and the narrowing character and alignment of Old Road".

The above has been fully discussed with the Highway Engineer's department and their full detailed comments are expected to be available prior to the meeting.

Sewer layout will have significant influence on the development layout which should be considered at an early stage.

Following the above-mentioned comment from Southern Water further information has been received as follows:

"I confirm that Southern Water is in negotiation with Barratts Consultant regarding the adoptable sewer to serve this development. The on-site surface water sewers are to be attenuated to a limited discharge flow of 21.8 litres per second into the off-site surface water sewer to be laid in Old Road. Any increase in impermeable area will be catered for within the development storage and will not affect the flows in the off-site sewer.

I have currently received proposals for the off-site sewer but still await details of the on-site systems.

I trust the above allays any fears you or your Members have in respect of the effect of the change of density proposals on this site".

The Island Fire Officer supports the proposal provided a 3.1 metre road width is maintained.

Isle of Wight Society's comment in respect of the initial proposal for 96 dwellings summarised as follows:

Concern that there is less green open space on this layout compared with the previous approval.

The welcome the introduction of bungalows either side of the main entrance along with the provision of two small service roads set within the boundary tree screen.

Concerned that the banks and trees adjacent Old Road should be retained with additional planting to re-establish the tree screen. In this regard reference is made to a squirrel habitation and need to ensure these animals continue to habitat this area.

Assurances that traffic calming measures to the south along Old Road will be provided. Society emphasises they will not like to see pavement in Old Road south of the site for this would adversely effect the character of that road when related to Osborne House.

Following the re-advertisement of the application in respect of the increase to 100 units Isle of Wight Society further comment as follows:

Application now in excess of 30 houses per hectare and it was felt that this site should be developed at the minimum guideline and not go beyond that figure.

Proposal will result in increased traffic and therefore increased pressures on an already inadequate road system both locally and within East Cowes. Particular reference made to traffic congestion resulting from ferry traffic.

Concern that emergency services in East Cowes can cater for this increase in population.

Do not consider the Floating Bridge can be relied upon as an alternative access from East Cowes, especially in the Summer.

Acknowledgement that the public open space areas have been increased and that landscaping has been suggested and they will watch this with particular interest.

Information is considered essential relating to when and how traffic calming measures will be introduced to Old Road. They consider these calming measures should be in place before work commences on site.

One letter of concern has been received from resident of Old Road written on behalf of twenty four households in Old Road. This letter received in response to the initial proposal and a further letter from this group has been received following the re-advertisement of the application increasing the density to 100 units. The points raised in both letters are summarised as follows:

Concern that any new surface water sewer is capable of servicing this proposed density of development.

Concern that any storage and attenuation via a holding tank is sufficient to cater for the worst situation with reference being made to increases in sea level, winter rainfall and effect of gale force winds, high tides etc.

Level of capacity on site and its location, capacity of any holding tank near the outfall and the location of the outfall.

Concern that the developers will construct a number of units before the sewer pipeline is completed which would be contrary to previous information gained from Southern Water.

Concern relating to the inadequacies of Old Road south of the site from the top entrance to Hefford Road up to the junction with New Barn Road.

Concern being expressed that submitted proposals do not indicate traffic calming scheme, no pedestrian crossing indicated adjacent to the entrance to the site, and a new pavement with particular reference to such a pavement being provided on the south side of Old Road.

Second letter received from this group of residents with additional points raised covered as follows:

Reference made to covenant in respect of the land which Members will be aware is not a planning issue and the writer will be advised accordingly.

Writer expresses concerns that 100 units now proposed will not be the end and that further increases in density will occur.

Concern that the increase in numbers is a method the developer is using to pay for the new drainage system that needs to be installed.

What level of control will the Council have over the number of houses to be built on the site once work commences.

Concern on the impact that this proposal may have on the infrastructure of East Cowes with reference to one Health Centre, one dentist, the schools etc.

Concern that any new laying of surface water drainage would cause problems in itself, with particular reference to existing sewers and surfaces within Old Road.

Concern that the open space areas shown on the submitted plan are fragmented and situated alongside roads, and questioning whether they are sufficient to cope with the demands for a recreational area for children on an estate of this size.

Initial proposal of 94 units attracted a total of eleven individual letters of objection, six from Old Road, two from Oaks Close, one from New Barn Road, one from Cadets Walk and one from Vereker Drive.

Following the re-advertisement of the application covering the increased density to 100 units fifteen further letters received, mainly from original letter writers, six being from residents of Old Road, two from Oaks Close and one each from residents of Sylvan Avenue, Vereker Drive, New Barn Road and Cadets Walk.

Contents of these letters are covered in the main by the detailed points raised above from resident group in Old Road with additional points raised summarised as follows:

Concern that unless the surface water proposals are expedited correctly then residents of the site will be subject to constant problems in respect of surface water drainage.

Local residents understood that social housing for this development has been built in East Cowes town centre so do not understand why a further six units are to be built on this site.

Insufficient retail outlets in East Cowes, with particular reference to food retail outlets to serve this additional development.

Question as to whether consideration has been given to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act which requires Local Authorities to ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent crime and disorder in the area.

Objects to the six social units with particular reference to their proximity close to his rear boundary.

Proposal will impact on his environment from a pollution and noise point of view.

He suggests that the boundary trees which are within his site but abut the application site should be considered for crown reduction, making reference to the previous consent granted under the Tree Preservation Order legislation for such crown reduction.

Application of a sequential test under policies of PPG3 bearing in mind the site's status as a green field site with an extant planning permission.

Appropriateness of increase in density with particular reference to PPG3 policies.

Drainage issues with particular attention to offsite surface water drainage proposals.

With regard to the first issue, the advice contained in PPG3 suggests that development should be carried out in a sequence starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings, then urban extensions and finally new undeveloped land located within good public transport corridors. Such tests should be considered against a number of caveats:

The availability of previously developed sites and empty or under used buildings and their suitability for housing use.

The location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and services by mode other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility.

The capacity of existing and potential infra-structure including public transport, water and sewage, other utilities and social infra-structure such as schools and hospitals to absorb further development and the cost of adding further infra-structure.

The ability to build communities to support new physical and social infra-structure and to provide sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities.

The physical and environmental constraints on development of land including, for example, the level of contamination, stability and flood risk taking into account that such risk may increase as a result of climate change.

When applying the above to the current site there is no doubt that this is a green field site on the edge of town and therefore consideration of the sequential test is appropriate.

Site is allocated for residential development on the statutory Unitary Development Plan and as such would have been subject of appropriate consultations with regard to demand and provision of local services etc. at the time of considering that allocation.

Members will be aware that an urban capacity study is near completion for the Island as a whole. However, it must be remembered that a lot of sites are likely to be small in nature (under more than one ownership) and therefore their contribution to the sequential test will be limited.

Infrastructure problems have been clearly addressed in terms of the extant consent and this proposal, with particular reference to the laying of a new surface water sewer from the site to an outfall in the River Medina. Similarly, the Highway Engineer is not suggesting that this site cannot be serviced by Old Road subject to measures being taken and again this suggests the site can deliver immediately.

Given the above circumstances with particular reference to the extant consent and deliverability, the benefit of the scheme in terms of the wider objective of PPG3, in my opinion, far outweigh the sequential test general requirements. PPG3 is not designed to prohibit green field development, but simply to release brownfield and greenfield at similar times and avoiding all the greenfield sites to be built out first. With the extant implemented permission, this is probably the last greenfield site to be developed first. This is over and above greenfield sites which do not have extant permissions.

Turning to the second issue of density. Members will note the concern being expressed by local residents at this increase in density from 79 to 100 units.

PPG3 states firstly, the proposal for 79 units were under the minimum density level suggested in PPG3 which Members will note is 30 to 50 units per hectare. The 79 unit approval equated to approximately 25 units per hectare. The current proposal is 32 units per hectare is, as Members will note, only just above the minimum figure and although local concern is noted it would be unsustainable to refuse this application on the grounds of excessive density. Indeed, the current proposal could be argued as representing efficient use of this site with the previous approvals representing an under development and under use of a valuable allocated site. The second issue with regard to density is that this current proposal, not surprisingly, indicates a greater range of dwelling types from detached five bedroomed houses to two bedroomed terraced houses, and includes semi-detached, three bedroomed and four bedroomed detached houses. Mixed development is encouraged in PPG3 and would therefore hopefully attract a greater range of income groups. Also, a higher acceptable density will assist in contributing to the housing figures which the Authority is expected to reach within the time period of the Unitary Development Plan. This proposal also provides on-site affordable housing whereas the previous schemes did not.

All the above suggests that despite the concerns of local residents, this proposal for 100 units on the site fully complies with the policy.

Regard to the third issue of affordable housing, the proposal includes a further eleven units for rent on site, enabling a greater control and deliverability. The level of provision has been the subject of considerable negotiations which at the time of preparing this report are still ongoing in terms of matters of detail.

The previous approval for 79 units included a Legal Agreement requiring seven off-site affordable units to be provided and although seven units have been constructed (York Avenue), the actual logistics of that provision in terms of linking it to the Old Road site has been weak. A sum of £21000 was provided by the former owner of the Old Road site which assisted in facilitating the construction of the seven units, however, it did not provide them. However, the terms of the Legal Agreement have been met.

As the 79 units could be built today, negotiation focused on the additional 21 units of which eleven are affordable units (55%). This gives an overall figure of 18%. The details have not been finalised as there appears to be some difficulty in some Housing Associations meeting 50% of market price.

The Housing Need survey emphasises the importance of deliverability and establishes the need to achieve a target of an additional 375 affordable homes per year to meet the identified needs of low income groups. I therefore consider a proposal for eleven units as a result of this increased density is acceptable.

Other important issue is surface water drainage. The applicants have addressed this issue by extending the requirements of the reserved matters application of 79 units. Full details have been received in respect of the alignment of the off-site surface water sewer and Southern Water have confirmed that they are actively involved in negotiations with the developers regarding the whole issue of surface water drainage. Applicants have employed the services of Civil Engineers and comment

"These works will need to be commenced immediately upon planning consent as very few units can be occupied without the need for this up-grade of off-site sewer. Perhaps a limit of a number of occupations could be denoted within any planning consent".

With regard to the final sentence above, this may not be possible for it is noted that Southern Water's comments state that no surface water should be discharged into the public foul sewer as this could cause flooding to the downstream properties. It is my understanding that the sewer in Old Road is a combined sewer and I would interpret the Southern Water statement as stating that no additional surface water drainage should discharge in to that combined system. It may be advisable to cover this issue by conditions. Members will appreciate the whole strategy behind the need for a separate off-site surface water sewer is to relieve the combined sewer from having to accept surface water drainage and therefore providing additional capacity within that sewer for foul drainage from this site. In this regard Members will note that most of the surface water drainage in Old Road and Oaks Close will be picked up by this off-site surface water sewer.

The final issue with regards to surface water drainage is that relating to on-site attenuation with the actual level of attenuation having been agreed, but at this stage the method of achieving that attenuation is still under consideration. I am satisfied that such attenuation can be provided on site.

The issue of traffic calming in Old Road has been referred to with regard to the payment of £12000 by the previous owner of the site towards such calming. I am awaiting information from the Highway Engineer as to the likely programme as to when such traffic calming measures may be introduced, bearing in mind that the £12000 needs to be spent within a set time period. Also, whilst the Highway Engineer has made general comments regarding the proposal I fully expect the detailed comments to be received prior to the meeting with suggested conditions.

In terms of traffic generation, again the increase in density appears to be causing concern to the local residents in as much as such an increase will involve additional traffic generation onto a road which is perceived to be incapable of accepting that level of traffic. Obviously, the level of traffic to be generated by this scheme is determined by the amount of parking spaces provided. Increases in density does not necessarily mean increase in traffic with a number of the units being smaller in accommodation and more importantly provided with lower levels of parking,

"The approved 79 unit scheme which has a large number of four bedroomed detached units makes provision for 238 parking spaces including garages and visitor parking at an average of 3 spaces per unit. Whereas our proposed scheme also generates 238 spaces but at a rate of 2.4 spaces per unit, however, the scheme utilises a much higher proportion of 2/3 bedroom units".

This again indicates the importance of the extant consent and the difficulty there would be in sustaining as a reason for refusal excess traffic generation. The issue of generation of traffic and its effect on Old Road was considered in some detail at the time of that previous approval and apart from the introduction of traffic calming measures covered by the payment of £12000, the Highway Engineer was of the view that Old Road was capable of accepting the additional traffic. This is an allocated site with access on to Old Road. Indeed, it could be argued that the current provision of 2.4 spaces per unit is in excess of that advised in PPG3 which aims at 1.5 spaces per unit across the whole site. The site itself is in Zone 3 which requires 0 - 75% of parking guidelines (one parking space per bedroom) and with the current proposal of 100 units this would require at the level of 75% 247 spaces, whereas the applicant is providing 238 spaces and is therefore under that 75% figure. I therefore consider the proposal as submitted in terms of generation of traffic is acceptable given the above figures, and is in compliance with the Unitary Development Plan.

Finally, with regard to provision of open space, Members will note that the proposal does provide elements of open space including the area either side of the access, and two further areas which relate to one another centrally located on the site. In this form, I consider the open space provides an integral part of the layout being prominently located opposite the access road and would form an important visual feature.

Applicant is suggesting that this open space can be treated in three ways as follows:

Setting up as a management company with each property owner contributing to that company to ensure long term maintenance management of the open space area.

The open space areas can be transferred either to IW Council or East Cowes Town Council with an agreed commuted sum to cover future maintenance.

It is my belief that the latter option represents the most practical solution in the long term. I certainly do not consider option 2 to be practical, and the problem with option 1 is again in the long term when houses have been sold on to other owners etc. I therefore suggest that if Members are agreeable that this application should be subject of a Legal Agreement requiring a financial contribution towards maintenance of the open space areas.

1. Recommendation - Approval (revised plans) (subject to a Section 106 agreement in respect of financial contribution of agreed sum towards future maintenance of open space areas as cross hatched green on the approved plan).

In total, eleven affordable housing units for rent shall be built and transferred to a registered social landlord at a discounted price of 50% market value or in accordance with an alternative agreed scheme with at least five of such units being provided for occupation before occupation of the first 25 open market houses, with the remaining six units being provided for occupation before 50 units of open market housing have been completed for occupation.

Reason: To accord with local and national policies regarding provision of affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and the intentions of PPG3 - Housing - March 2000.

The affordable housing units transferred in accordance with condition no. 2 shall not be used for any purpose other than for the provision of affordable housing for rent or in another agreed form of tenancy to meet the objectives of the registered social landlord except where tenants exercise their rights to purchase properties under the Purchase Grant Scheme included in the Housing Act 1996. Also the condition shall not be binding or be enforceable against any mortgagee or chargee (or persons deriving title from such mortgagee or chargee) who are in possession of either all or any of the affordable housing units pursuant to any mortgagee or chargee and which mortgagee or chargee is exercising the power of sale.

Reason: To accord with local and national policies regarding the provision of affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the IW Unitary Development Plan and national policies within PPG3 - Housing - March 2000.

The proposed off site surface water sewer to be laid from the site within Old Road/Columbine Road through to an outfall at the sea wall to the River Medina shall be completed in accordance with the submitted details before the first unit and/or road requires connection to the surface water sewer. No surface water run-off from the site shall discharge into the existing combined sewer in Old Road.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of surface water sewage is provided for the development.

Prior to work commencing, full details of on site surface water along with a programme of works of the method of attenuation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority with any such approved scheme being implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. Any such scheme shall ensure maximum run-off rate of 7 litres per second/per hectare and provide storage capacity of 404 cubic metres in accordance with the submitted plans.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of surface water sewage is provided for the development.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the width, alignment, gradient and drainage of all roads shall be submitted to and approved 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.

The metalled surfaced footway as indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be constructed over the frontage of the site to Old Road, with full details being submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works and thereafter constructed in accordance with those agreed details prior to occupation of plots 1-6 inclusive and plots 96-100 inclusive of the residential development.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access to the proposed dwellings in compliance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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 (1 year) 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 Policies C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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 Policies C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) and D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development commences, full details of the landscaping proposals indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall specify positions, species and size of trees and shrubs to be planted together with phasing and timing of such planting and include provision of plant maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting.

Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

All material excavated from the site as a result of general ground works, including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall either be disposed outside the site (outlined in red/blue) prior to completion of the development or shall form part of an approved landscaping scheme. Such scheme shall be implemented prior to completion/occupation of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and D3 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

All boundary details as indicated on the approved plan (drawing no. 18/580/003K) shall be completed prior to occupation of any of the dwellings to which those boundary treatments relate. Such boundary treatments shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Notwithstanding provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) with or without modification, no windows or dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in the south elevation of plot 89, the west elevation of plot 81 and the north elevation of plot 10.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of plots 75-81 inclusive, a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence shall be erected adjacent parking spaces 81 and 82 and such close boarded fence shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining property in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That a letter be sent to the applicants advising that consideration should be given to the possibility of slow worms being present along the perimeter of the site and further advising that any specimens collected should be removed to a suitable site nearby with any such removal being subject to consultation with the Council’s Ecology Officer and English Nature.

TCP/01374/V P/00683/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde South East

Registration Date: 26/04/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570

13 dwellings; formation of access road, (revised scheme) (re-advertised application)

land rear of 42-50 St. Johns Road and 30-34, Riboleau Street, Ryde, PO33

Application relates to irregularly shaped plot of cleared land situated to rear of residential properties fronting Bennett Street, St John's Hill and Riboleau Street and to rear of electricity depot which itself fronts Bennett Street and Park Road.

Site previously accommodated various buildings used by Social Services with existing call-in centre remaining to north of application site.

On adjacent land (over which access to application site is gained) planning consent granted in 1990 for 19 houses on plot of land bounded by St John's Road and Bennett Street.

Outline planning consent granted in January 1996 for ten dwellings. Consent renewed in March 1999 and is still extant.

Originally submitted application indicated development comprising eleven dwellings. However, after negotiation in seeking to minimise impact on adjoining residents and existing trees whilst improving layout of proposed housing scheme, application has been revised and now incorporates thirteen dwellings comprising four pairs of semi-detached properties, a terrace of four units and single detached house.

Site would be accessed off existing highway (Bailey Close) and briefly comprises two rows of dwellings running north/south across site which has pronounced slope to east.

Twelve dwellings would comprise three bedroom units with single detached unit having benefit of four bedrooms. Service road routes north/south through site and each property would have benefit of single off road parking space.

In terms of style, housing types would reflect design and house type of adjacent residential developments served off Bailey Close.

Part of application site is within larger allocated housing site as shown on adopted Unitary Development Plan. Supporting text advises that area of 0.3 hectares has outline consent for ten dwellings approved in January 1996.

In respect of original submission for eleven dwellings, the following comments were received.

Five letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

Proposal will over-dominate amenities of surrounding residential occupiers, particularly given local land levels.

In respect of revised proposal for thirteen dwellings, following comments have been received.

Two letters have been received from a local resident maintaining objections to development of site. Objections are maintained on grounds that proposal should be accompanied by Environmental Impact Study and potential increase in demand for local school service provision. Further objections relate to increase in number of cars using local roads on school route, increase in noise levels and greater risk to residents' security.

Given site's location within established residential area, there is no objection in principle to residential redevelopment of this brown field site subject to more detailed matters relating to access, design and layout and impact on surrounding residents being acceptable.

In seeking to develop brown field site, proposal can be seen in making best use of land as required by PPG3 'Housing'. Proposed development represents density of some 56 dwellings per hectare which is at top end of parameters suggested within PPG3. Guidance Note goes on to state that Local Planning Authority should seek to encourage greater intensity of development of places with good public transport accessibility, such as city, town, district and local centres.

Proposal which now incorporates buildings on north/south axis has advantage of maximising distances to existing residential development on eastern and western boundaries, whilst allowing mature willow trees along western boundary of site to be retained. Minimum distance to western boundary is approximately 6 metres and minimum distance to eastern boundary is some 4 metres.

In design and style terms, development would reflect adjoining development in Bailey Close and in visual terms would represent logical extension to that development.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed scheme represents an acceptable development of this brown field site at an appropriate density reflecting advice contained within PPG3 whilst having no undue adverse impact on locality or surrounding residents. Overall scheme is considered to be in accordance with Policies H3, H6 and D1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

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 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.

TCP/01501/T P/00158/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Fairlee

Registration Date: 30/01/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. S. Cornwell Tel: (01983) 823566

Change of use of land & buildings to form monkey sanctuary;outline planning permission for buildings variation of agricultural occupancy condition (revised plans)(additional information supplied in form of Development Plan)(re-advertised application)

Five Acres Farm, Staplers Road, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO302NB

Application site relates to a holding of some 2 hectares in area which is located on the north side of Staplers Road beyond the edge of the built-up area of Newport. A brick built bungalow lies in the northeast corner of the holding and there are several storage buildings lying to the north of the bungalow adjacent the eastern boundary. The open land which is presently down to grass is bounded by a combination of post and wire fences and tall hedges. The land generally falls away to the north. Beyond the northwestern and northeastern boundaries is open land whilst beyond the southwest boundary are buildings associated with a nursery. The bungalow itself is surrounded by conifers although it can be viewed from the road but this vegetation provides a screen to the open ground behind.

In April 1986 an agricultural worker's bungalow was approved to support an egg producing enterprise. The standard agricultural occupancy condition was imposed.

In April 1989 a double garage and formation of vehicular access was approved. In June 1991 the use of the land for the sale of produce not grown on site was refused.

The erection of a detached building to provide an agricultural implement store was approved in August 1998 but this has not been implemented.

In September 2000 planning permission to remove the agricultural occupancy condition was refused.

1. Full planning permission for the change of use of the land and the existing buildings to form a monkey sanctuary which would be open to the public.

2. Outline planning permission for a range of buildings to service the facility. Applicant request that siting and access be determined at this time with design, landscaping and external appearance reserved for future determination.

3. A variation to the standard agricultural occupancy condition to allow the dwelling to be occupied by a person engaged in the operation of the sanctuary.

A plan showing the position of the various facilities within the site is attached as Appendix A.

In October 2001 a development plan was submitted by the applicants revising and clarifying the nature of the proposal and covering what are anticipated to be the main issues. The contents of

the development plan are broken down into twenty sections of which the following sections are attached as Appendix B to this report.

New buildings on site fall into two main categories namely, the entrance block encompassing shop and tearoom, education block and toilet block and secondly animal enclosures which are types A and B buildings.

Buildings in category 1 to have pitched roofs finished in timber cladding and dark stain treated. All low rise single storey being 2.5 metres to 3 metres at eaves level.

The enclosures in category 2 specifically designed to suit the occupying species, these are of timber construction with a wire mesh area with a living enclosure behind.

Existing access to be improved with visibility splays to provide access for car-borne visitors to site. Coach parking to be provided within layby running to north of site with a pedestrian footpath leading from layby into site. Also proposed to provide number of "Sheffield" hoops for visitor bicycle storage.

Thirty-two space car park to be provided with two designated spaces for disabled. Could accommodate a further ten to fifteen spaces within central area if required.

Estimating within one to three years will attract 5,000 visitors growing to 20,000 per annum for Phase I.

Reasonable to expect 75% of visitors within the 28 week spring to summer period and over those weeks this equals 536 visitors a week. This represents 77 persons a day and at two to three persons a car, equates to 32 spaces.

Sanctuary would be laid out to ensure that disabled visitors have access to all facilities.

Regarding waste and rubbish facilities, general refuse collected by licensed refuse contractor whilst clinical waste will be collected in approved containers for removal by approved contractor. Animal waste to be collected at least once and probably twice daily for removal to the disposal area designated in northwest corner of site. All animal waste will be sealed and stored in approved containers for regular collection and disposal by licensed contractor. Biffa Waste Services Ltd confirmed they could provide such a service.

Drainage - New toilets to be served by septic tank with car parking area and surface water from new buildings to be run to soakaways.

Monkey sanctuary will require Zoo Operator's licence which itself requires certain standards.

In veterinary care for sanctuary to be provided by Jackson Green and Foster Partnership and letter confirms this.

All animals brought to sanctuary will be fully screened and inoculated prior to relocation. If necessary have facility for quarantine to isolate any animal.

Two supporting letters attached, one from Twycross Zoo and second from Bristol Zoo with a further letter setting out various health measures relating to both animals and staff when keeping primates. The procedures and protocols proposed for the sanctuary will follow these measures.

Letter from Gibson Phelps and Partners Accounts who have prepared a cash flow forecast over a period of three years which they indicate show that the sanctuary will very quickly stand on its own feet.

As a result of information submitted in Business Plan, clarification sought from developer on a number of issues, specifically status of birds of prey, noise levels, cage design and waste disposal. Reply is attached as Appendix C.

The following points of information have also been submitted by the applicants to clarify noise and waste issues further:

Howlett Wild Animal Park Family Group Siamang Gibbons decibel reading mid song at 50 feet. Crescendo 78db estimated distance.

Following responses to an enquiry with Zoos regarding how they dispose of waste material:

Chester Zoo have a compactor wagon but take to local landfill site treated as chemical waste.

Jersey Zoo - regular faecal sampling to check clear of major bugs (e.g. ecoli), if all clear it is composited on site for shrubs etc. Treated as chemical waste and incinerated if bugs present.

Marwell Zoo - bagged up in skips and disposed of by Onyx Waste Contractors (landfill).

Paignton Zoo - collected by clinical waste contractor. Used to have incinerator and regret that it is no longer in use.

Twycross Zoo - bagged up in skips and disposed of by Leigh Environmental Contractors (landfill).

Applicants obtained letter from Mr D Chivers, University Reader in Primate Biology and Conservation at University of Cambridge which states the following:

"The adult Siamang pair duets regularly, perhaps on a daily basis maybe once every few days. The duet lasts about 15 minutes. He is very noisy carrying on at least 2 kilometres in the forest but is very impressive. Unpaired male Siamang usually call

much less often and for shorter periods. It remains to be seen how often several males together will call but it cannot really constitute a disturbance. Calling occurs usually in the morning.

Paragraph 28 "A number of the previous themes come together in considering development in the countryside. Here, the planning system helps to integrate the development necessary to sustain economic activity in rural areas with protection of the countryside. Rural areas can accommodate many forms of development without detriment, if the location and design of development are handled with sensitivity. Building in the open countryside, away from existing settlements or from areas allocated for development in development plans should be strictly controlled."

Paragraph 50 "In principle ...... any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances" (Stringer MHLG 1971). "Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest........"

PPG7 - The Countryside Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development.

Paragraph 2.14 "The Government's policies of the countryside should be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural resources should be afforded protection.............."

Paragraph 3.12 "Rural tourism makes a major and growing contribution to rural economic activity and the rural labour market. It needs to develop in a way which draws on the character of the countryside and does not destroy the very asset on which its popularity depends........."

Paragraph 3.21 "New house building and other new development in the open countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for development in Development Plans should be strictly controlled ....."

i17 "Where the need to provide accommodation to enable farm or forestry workers to live at or near their place of work has been accepted as justifying isolated residential development in the countryside, it will be necessary to ensure that the dwellings are kept available for meeting this need. For this purpose planning permission should be made subject to an occupancy condition......."

i22 "Planning Authorities should be able to determine most applications for agricultural or forestry dwellings in the countryside, including cases involving the imposition or removal of occupancy conditions, on the basis of their experience and the information provided by the applicant and any other interested parties......"

Paragraph 1.3 "The planning system should not be operated so as to duplicate controls which are the statutory responsibilities of other bodies......"

1.21 The National Rivers Authority (NRA) (now the Environment Agency) is responsible for policing and protecting the quality of inland, coastal and underground waters, for conserving and enhancing water resources, and for licensing water abstraction.

"Planning Authorities will need to consult Pollution Control Authorities in order that they can take account of the scope and requirements of the relevant pollution controls. Planning Authorities should work on the assumption that the pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should not seek to substitute their own judgement on pollution control issues for that of the bodies with the relevant expertise and the statutory responsibility for that control."

Paragraph 2 "The impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications".

Paragraph 11 "Noisy characteristics and levels can vary substantially according to their source and the type of activity involved........ Sudden impulses, irregular noise or noise which contains a distinguishable continuous tone will require special consideration."

Paragraph 13 "A number of measures can be introduced to control the source of, or limited exposure to, noise. Such measures should be proportionate and reasonable and may include one or more of the following:

The site lies outside the development envelope and is therefore considered to be within the open countryside.

When application was first submitted and advertised in January 2001, it attracted objection letters from 27 residents of which three asked for their letters to be read out. Letters of objection were also received from Amazon World, Islandwatch, the Born Free Foundation and the Monkey Sanctuary Looe.

Fundamentally, the initial series of representations raised concerns that the proposal was not thought through in any detail. They also raised a range of issues which were repeated in the representations received subsequent to the revised application.

The Environment Agency raised no objection in principle to the original scheme and requested a condition that any proposal be submitted and agreed.

The Environmental Health Department (Senior Licensing Officer) made the following observation on the initial scheme:

"Spoken to Zoo Inspector, he does not wish to comment at this stage. However, he does draw Planning's attention to the DETR Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice in regard to the five principles of animal welfare."

The Planning Policy Section commented on the initial proposal identifying the following policies as relevant:

T2 - Tourist development, subject to criteria including design, landscaping, car parking, access and environment.

House should be tied to operation of monkey park under H9d if approved and revert back to agricultural occupancy to prevent normal residential development.

At the beginning of October 2001 the application was revised with the submission of the Business Plan and other supporting documents. The following representations have been received in response to these documents.

"Further to our meeting at Seaclose on 10 January 2002 I can confirm that I have no objection to the above proposal providing that the following conditions are imposed on any approval. These conditions are designed to minimise any noise, odour or smoke emission from the proposed sanctuary.

2. Any solid barriers used in cage construction and any other freestanding solid barriers shall be incorporated or used on the sides of each cage that are nearest to any noise sensitive premises.

Forty three letters of objection have been received from individuals, the Ramblers, CPRE and from the Born Free Foundation. One of the letters included a petition with forty eight signatures.

One of the letters has been submitted on behalf of Island Action for Animal and Animal Aid. This letter is attached as Appendix E to this report.

Two objectors have requested that their letters are read out and Members are asked to advise whether they wish these letters to be read out in their entirety or whether they are content that the main points are included below.

Concerned over noise made by animals which can carry for miles. Monkeys can be easily agitated.

Already suffer problems from people with dogs in area, concerned one set of animals will trigger off another during vocal communications and during mating calls. Night time will be even worse.

Concerned road already being used beyond its capacity and will become accident prone.

Will create dangerous access close to Blacklands Corner with cars and coaches entering and leaving site.

Believe monkeys can carry fatal diseases and question whether vets. on IW have necessary experience to deal with them.

Monkey World set in 80 acres employing 15 trained keepers yet only keep 130 primates.

Concerned over keeping and transportation of dangerous animals close to residential area.

Should only be approved if foolproof methods in place to stop escapes. Mink deer and wallabies have all escaped and are now threatening native flora and fauna.

Presence of isolation facility underlines concerns over health issues of new animals.

Concerned development would in future extend beyond site in to surrounding land with need for more buildings.

Note layby for two coaches, what happens if more than two arrive - doubt they will be turned away and therefore traffic problems will result.

Contrast this site with Monkey World in Dorset which is professionally run and has several layers of protective fencing.

Is sufficient money set aside for insurance given compensation nature of society.

Applicants report says they will try to maintain disease-free facility if at all possible. Report also says calls and songs can carry over a kilometre with vocalisations from loud booming to calls.

Environmental impacts, waste, noise, odour, possible communicable diseases cannot be overlooked.

Have studied attraction figures of similar places on Island and general trend for attendance is downward.

If approved trust there will be restrictions on the type of monkeys kept because of noise concerns.

Members will note in the Representations section of this report that this proposal has raised a great deal of interest and comment. Various comments have been made that were not considered relevant to the determination of the application, accordingly, those factors such as the ethics of keeping caged animals will not form part of the analysis of this application and should not be considered by Members in their decision. Equally the application of the Modern Standard of Zoo Practice are clearly aimed at the licencing assessment and will not impinge directly on the determination of this application. In so far as the material planning considerations are concerned I believe that these are as follows:

(f) Whether circumstances justify the variation of the agricultural occupancy condition.

With regards to the general planning policies that apply to development in this locality, the site lies beyond the northeastern edge of the development envelope for Newport and is, therefore, within an area considered to be open countryside. The UDP obviously contains policies seeking to protect the countryside but there are also a number of policies which indicate that development could be acceptable in such a location subject to other criteria. Members should also note that by its very nature this is not a development which could be accommodated within any development area because of the implications of its close proximity to residential properties. The issue for Members to address is therefore where the balance should come down between protecting the countryside and promoting a facility which would generally help the local economy.

Regarding the impact of the proposal on the surrounding locality, this application has been the subject of detailed discussions with the Chief Environmental Health Officer who has also attended a meeting with the developers. Since the application was first submitted the applicant has focused on the types of monkey to be kept and identified ten species which are listed in the extracts from the Business Plan attached as Appendix B. Of these, the loudest would be the Siamang Gibbons. It has been suggested that these will be kept in bachelor groups, thereby eliminating that part of their 'calling' in so far as it relates to attracting a mate. A different view has been expressed by the objectors that bachelor groups will still call. It has only been at a late stage in the determination of this application at a meeting on 10 January 2002 that information was presented with regards to the noise levels. The developers also offered to limit what are considered to be potentially the most noisy animals to no more than two cages. The ability to further control noise through the adoption of certain measures during the construction of the cages offering solid walls in certain elevations was also discussed.

The conclusions following this additional information are set out in the Environmental Health Officer's comments outlined above. He believes that the application can be supported subject to the imposition of certain conditions.

Concerning the potential visual impact of the buildings on the wider landscape, although the application is in outline information has been sought on this point. It may have been considered by certain parties that the Local Planning Authority's desire to seek further clarification on this particular point was triggered by a concern with regards to matters of animal welfare, however, this was not the case. Although in outline, it was considered necessary to understand the full implications of the size of the enclosures required. This would ensure that the Local Planning Authority was considering the maximum height of the cages now and would not be faced with requests at a later date, possibly triggered by a desire to meet some other legislation, such as the Standards of Modern Zoo Practice to increase the height of the cages.

Scheme as submitted shows seven new enclosures consisting of two types, the type A facility being 24 metres by 16 metres with a maximum height of 4 metres. Of this footprint, 25% is occupied by heated internal quarters. The type B enclosure measures 12 metres by 12 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres of which approximately 20% of the footprint is taken up by heated internal quarters. The proposal would involve other buildings and these are outlined in the Details of Application section above.

The site is presently bounded by high conifer trees particularly on the northern, western and southern boundaries. The site has been assessed in terms of its impact on the close and distant views. Given the scale of the buildings proposed I believe that it will have little impact on the wider landscape. I acknowledge that the boundary to Staplers Road will need to be re-enforced, particularly if the visibility splay as initially indicated by the Highway Engineer is to be accommodated.

An objection has been raised on the degree of site coverage by buildings quoting a figure of 2,600 square metre. Members have attached as Appendix A a plan showing the position of the buildings within the site. My assessment is that the site coverage by buildings is not so critical given the site characteristics and the limited views into the site.

Concerning the traffic management of the site the scheme has been revised and now shows a layby on Staplers Road sufficient to accommodate two coaches. The intention is for visitors from the coaches to then walk to the site on a footpath. Parking for at least 32 cars is provided for within the site. The site itself will have an improved access to accommodate car traffic with appropriate visibility splays out on to the main road. The Highway Engineer has been involved in negotiations with the developer and I await his final views.

Regarding the issue of waste disposal applicants have indicated that the wash down from the cages will be allowed to disperse in to the surrounding ground whilst the solid waste will be collected, stored in containers and disposed of by a contractor at the Island's landfill site.

Following concerns raised regarding this method of disposal applicants have contacted a number of other facilities and these are outlined in the Details of Application section. There does appear to be an acceptance of disposal at landfill sites by other Zoos. Regarding the disposal of the limited amount of wash down water in to the surrounding land I have taken the opportunity of reconsulting the Environment Agency who are the statutory body concerned. I have yet to hear from them, although Members will note that when the Environment Agency first considered the application back in May 2001 they raised no objection.

Turning to the question of the variation to the Agricultural Occupancy condition Members will note that this was originally imposed when the site operated as an egg producing enterprise. That unit ceased to function several years ago and given the relatively small size of the holding, it is unlikely that an alternative agricultural enterprise can be developed on this site all that easily. It is not intended that the Agricultural Occupancy condition be removed but that the precise wording should be varied to encapsulate both agriculture, forestry or someone employed at this sanctuary. Under this situation, should the new enterprise cease to trade at some point in the future for whatever reason then the dwelling could still revert back to its former use and serve an agricultural operation on site or in the wider agricultural community.

This proposal has since first submission raised a number of concerns within the local community on a range of issues. Where practical, clarification has been sought on these matters with the developer, but it has become clear that a point has been reached where the proposal must be considered by the Committee. I believe that these concerns raised by objectors in so far as they relate to the determination of the proposal, have been considered and addressed in the Evaluation section of this report. Taking into account the advice from consultees, I believe that there is sufficient justification to accept the proposal in policy terms whilst the assessment of the other issue relating to visual impact, noise, traffic management, waste disposal and the amendment to the agricultural occupancy condition all lead me to believe that the proposal is acceptable.

In conclusion, having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to above, I believe that subject to appropriate safeguards which can be imposed through planning conditions that the application can be supported.

Recommendation - Approval (subject to final receipt of comment from Highway Engineer and Environment Agency).

Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s) 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 IW Unitary Development Plan.

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.

The landscaping scheme shall be completed within twelve months from the completion of the last building 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.

The existing hedges on the boundaries of the site and internal sections of hedging identified on the site layout plan in green shall be retained and reinforced where necessary to a minimum height of 4 metres and to a standard consistent with good arboricultural practice.

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area and to comply with Policies D3 (Landscaping) and C12 (Development Affecting Trees and Woodland) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture, or in forestry or in connection with the use of the adjoining land as a monkey sanctuary, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants.

Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted except where there is an overriding need in the interests of agriculture or forestry and to comply with Policy H9 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

In the event that any of the new buildings hereby approved ceasing to be used for more than six months, then that building shall be demolished with the materials removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition.

Reason: To protect the visual character of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy C1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No other animals beyond those identified in the Business Plan shall be accommodated on the site without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority has supported this application on the basis that the proposal will, subject to appropriate conditions, not result in any detrimental impact on the surrounding area with regards to the noise from animals. This condition is imposed to ensure that should the operators introduce other animals onto the site beyond those specified in the report, then the Local Planning Authority can consider whether such an introduction is appropriate.

No more than two cages shall be allocated to Gibbon species.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed use does not adversely affect the amenities of the locality and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters application relating to any of the enclosure buildings or quarantine building hereby approved, details shall be submitted incorporating where sections of solid barriers shall be used in cage construction, together with details of any freestanding solid barriers that are

proposed to be used on the sides of each cage that are nearest to any noise sensitive premises.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed use does not adversely affect the amenities of the locality and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/05514/V P/01209/01 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Medina

Registration Date: 13/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission

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

21 houses in 2 terraced blocks of 4, 3 terraced blocks of 3 and 2 pairs of semi-detached with parking spaces

site of former garages and parking area adjacent 160, Arctic Road, Cowes, PO31

Site located on western side of Arctic Road approximately 80 metres south of the junction of Arctic Road with Bridge Road. Cowes Social Club and part of the Texas Service Station abut west rear boundary with both those premises fronting Newport Road to the west. Site has a frontage on to Arctic Road of 70 metres and is currently overgrown although it does accommodate garage blocks and a workshop building. Site rises from Arctic Road towards the west.

In January 1989 outline consent granted for one block of eighteen flats and one block of eight flats (total twenty six).

In April 1995 outline consent granted for nine houses and conversion of existing workshop and store to form two maisonettes on that part of the current application site which forms the rear of 30 Newport Road and is north of 197 and 198 Arctic Road.

In August 1995 outline consent granted for eight houses on the northern half of the site adjacent 160 Arctic Road.

In April 1998 renewal of the outline consent for nine houses and two maisonettes as quoted above.

In September 1998 renewal of the outline consent for eight houses as quoted above.

Refusal on Medina Garage site to west for fifteen flats in March 1990 although approval was granted for twelve flats in October 1992. Latter decision was renewed in April 1998.

Detailed consent is sought for total of twenty one three bedroomed houses in the form of two groups of four terraced houses, three groups of three terraced houses and two pairs of semi-detached houses. Dwellings to be constructed in facing brick under concrete tiled roofs. Elevations indicate decorative string coursing and sills with each unit being provided with a bracketed gabled porch.

Vehicular access is off Arctic Road and consists of a 4.8 metre wide carriageway serving courtyard parking areas with the site providing a total of twenty one parking spaces.

In terms of arrangement of dwellings, six of the units (a terrace of four and a pair of semi-detached) face directly on to Arctic Road with five of the units (terrace of three and two pairs) turned at right angles located between the proposed access as described above. Remaining ten units (terrace of four and two terraces of three) set to the rear of the site with the areas between them being in the form of communal parking. Each of the units is provided with small rear gardens with none of the units having any front garden areas, all effectively opening on to a courtyard scheme. Applicants have indicated 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing around the site. 21 car parking spaces shown, within layout.

Meeting housing requirements for whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

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

Giving priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas should take pressures off development of green field sites.

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

Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities which could be increased in town centre areas with good public transport.

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

Seek to reduce car dependence by improving linkages of public transport between housing and jobs and reducing the level of parking. More than one 1.5 off street spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect Government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

Promote good design and new housing development in order to create attractive high quality living environment in which people would choose to live.

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

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.

Give priority to people over ease of traffic movement and plan to provide more road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in town centres.

Finally, in terms of National policies, Members attention is drawn to 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 these documents emphasise the importance of encouraging quality urban design by expressing main objectives through the various aspects of the built form.

In terms of affordable housing, PPG3 advises that "decisions about the amount and type of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local housing need and individual site suitability, and be a matter for agreement between the parties".

Site forms part of an overall residential allocation with there being two sites referred to within the Unitary Development Plan as follows:

Outline approval for twenty six flats granted January 1995. Full approval for fourteen dwellings adjacent land (granted May 1996).

Site of Medina Garage, Newport Road, Cowes, an area of 0.1 hectares, application for twenty six flats approved December 1991.

Policy H6 - Planning applications for high density residential development will be permitted in appropriate areas within a development envelope where the following criteria can be fulfilled:

(a) The development is close to public transport services and local town centre facilities.

(d) The density and design is acceptable and appropriate to the historic character and layout of the settlement.

Subject to provision of a 1.8 metre wide footway and associated kerbing and drainage works to the Highways Authority's specification along the entire site frontage as indicated on the revised application drawing, Highway Engineer recommends conditions.

Islandwatch object to the application on grounds of poor quality of design making reference to something better and more imaginative being provided and also referring to the loss of the railway line.

One letter of objection received from local resident in Uffa Fox Place with points raised being summarised as follows:

Concern that any nearby development to her property will cause ground movement affecting her foundations.

Consideration should be given to the construction of a retaining wall along the boundary between the writer's property and the development.

Density of development in the light of previous approvals and in relation to Housing Policies both National and local.

With regard to the first issue, this proposal Members will note represents an increase in density from the original combined overall density which resulted from the two consents subject to the renewal approvals of April and September 1998. Members are reminded that they related to a total of 19 units, whereas this proposal seeks consent for 21 units on the overall site. In comparison terms the current proposal results in a density of approximately 84 units per hectare, whereas the previous overall approval when combining the two sites was 76 units per hectare. This density compares with the formerly approved flatted development of 26 units on which the density was 104 units per hectare. It is fair to state that these figures represent high density intensive development even when related to the need to ensure that the land is developed efficiently. This apart, however, the current application density is still lower than the flatted development proposal for 26 flats.

The overall test however, as Members will be aware, is not necessarily the density figure but whether the arrangement of dwellings resulting from that density is acceptable, particularly within the context of the area.

This is probably the most contentious part of this application for although each house has a private garden, they are limited in size. In terms of compatibility with adjoining development this proposal follows very closely the most recent development to the north west adjacent the site fronting Arctic Road, which is a development of 14 units of similar sized dwellings. In that case the dwellings are sited very close to the back of footpath in Arctic Road, have fairly minimal gardens particularly in terms of the four terraced units which directly abut the application site, and provide a parking standard of approximately one space per unit. I appreciate the concerns being expressed regarding this level of housing development at this density, however, I would suggest that the Arctic Road area does provide an ideal location for this type of development being relatively close to the town centre, bus routes etc.

In this regard I make reference to PPG3 which specifically advises that Planning Authorities should seek greater intensity of development in places with good public transport accessibility. I make particular reference to Authority being encouraged not to place undue restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be accommodated on a site irrespective of location and the type of housing envisaged, or the type of households likely to occupy the housing.

Overall, I consider that this proposal meets the criteria set out in Policy H6 for acceptable high density development.

In terms of open space and the lack of any play area in respect of this proposal, Members' attention is drawn to public open space a short distance to the north west on the junction of Arctic Road with Newport Road, which would function conveniently as an amenity area.

In terms of provision of affordable housing, Members will note that the site's density exceeds the threshold figure of 15 units. The applicant has offered two units of affordable housing, being plots 1 and 2, on the southern side of the site where it abuts existing rented accommodation. This number is lower than the normal requirement for this level of density, but there are extenuating circumstances in this issue.

Reference is made to the previous approvals on this site all of which were granted prior to this policy being operational. Applicants were considering simply proceeding with those approvals which gave a total of 19 units on the site on which no requirement could be made for affordable housing because of the circumstances of the approval. This proposal, however, has introduced a further two units which the applicants are offering for affordable housing and therefore it was considered that this was an appropriate approach. Given that the site is allocated for residential development it was considered important that at least some affordable housing for rent was achieved albeit less than what could be called for had there not been the particular planning history on this site. Obviously I would of preferred to have achieved a greater number of affordable houses as a proportion of the development, however, I consider two units given the circumstances is an acceptable compromise and therefore I recommend an appropriate condition covering the deliverability of these units. If this scheme were to be refused because of insufficient affordable housing, it is likely that the 1998 approval would be implemented, without any affordable housing at all.

Members attention is also drawn to the recent Housing Needs survey which has, as Members will appreciate, identified where the housing needs are most critical in terms of dwelling types. This document makes reference to the "sales of terraces are much higher because they are the stock type to which there is greatest supply of lower cost housing". In this regard there is a predominance of terraced houses and it is anticipated that these properties will be aimed at the low to medium income groups. Obviously this is a commercial decision that the developer has to make, however, the adjoining site to the north west did not receive any sales resistance despite the fact that garden areas are relatively small and parking provision is at the minimum.

In terms of drainage issues, applicants confirm they have had preliminary discussions with Southern Water who confirm that there is an existing combined sewer adjacent to site in Arctic Road which runs in a southerly direction to an inspection chamber at the top of South Road sewer, then increasing in size down South Road. This proposal will result in an increase in surface water run-off that will not relate to the whole of the site. Approximately two thirds of the site currently accommodates buildings including garages and hard surfaced concrete areas with only the area which fronts the site covered in natural foliage. The existing hard surfaces are currently drained by gullies to Arctic Road into the above mentioned sewer and therefore a relatively small additional area will be contributing to that flow. This apart however, I consider that if Members are minded to approve the application, should it be subject of a condition requiring the submission of calculations to establish whether or not the developer would need to increase the size of the sewer in Arctic Road, in conjunction with Southern Water. Finally, applicants have established from Southern Water that there are no reported flooding problems caused by current drainage system.

With regard to concerns of neighbouring property owner in respect of effect of foundations on her property, applicants confirm that a ground investigation has been carried out which indicates that traditional trench filled foundations would be unacceptable. Therefore, applicants intend to use an auger piled system for foundations with that piling system being quite unobtrusive. Secondly, this will result in there being no deep excavations of the site, a further bonus in respect of disturbance to neighbouring properties.

Whilst acknowledging and accepting to a degree the concerns that this proposal does represent an intensive development which is unacceptable despite the policies, I consider that given the area within which the site stands it will be compatible and hopefully satisfy a need for housing in the area which will contribute economically to the Cowes town centre and with particular reference to this area. I therefore recommend accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I consider the application to be acceptable for the reasons given in the Evaluation and recommend accordingly.

No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding one metre in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site (in accordance with the plan attached) for 21 cars to be parked and for the loading and unloading of vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear and such provision shall be retained.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policies TR7 (Highway Considerations) and TR16 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No development shall take place until a detailed scheme including calculations for capacity studies have been submitted to and agreed to the Local Planning Authority indicating the means of foul and surface water drainage disposal. Any such agreed drainage system shall indicate connection at a point on the existing combined system where there is adequate capacity. No houses hereby approved shall be occupied until such an agreed system has been completed.

Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development in compliance with Policy U11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

No dwelling shall be occupied until the 1.8 metre close boarded boundary fencing indicated on the plan hereby approved has been fully erected. Any such fencing shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the surface treatments to the turning area and parking areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such agreed surface treatment shall be carried out in accordance with those agreed details and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of parking and turning and in the interests of the amenities of the occupiers in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before plots 3-6 inclusive, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 are occupied screen fencing shall be erected of agreed design and height, with any such fencing being retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of those properties in compliance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Before completion of 50% of the open market housing on the site is brought into use, two affordable housing units for rent (plots 1 and 2) shall be constructed and made available through a registered social landlord at 50% discount on market value for local needs. The agreed affordable housing units for rent shall be retained and maintained for that use.

Reason: In order to ensure provision of affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be occupied until a 1.8 metre footway across the whole frontage of the site has been constructed in accordance with agreed details as indicated on the submitted plan.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of footway for the proposed dwelling in compliance with Policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

5	TCP/09632/C P/00336/00 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 17/03/2000 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Outline for a block of flats (LP Ref:64951), land adjacent 9/11 Victoria Avenue, fronting, St. Johns Road, Shanklin, PO37

This application was first considered by the Committee last year and was then the subject of a site inspection which duly took place on 26 October when it was resolved to defer the proposal again requesting more detailed plans to show effects on the adjoining properties, the block's height, scale, mass and the number of units and in addition to clarify matters of parking.

Site of approximately 0.05 hectare, overall dimensions of 19 metres by approximately 26 metres with its north and east boundaries abutting the public car park. Formerly part of the gardens to the properties located to the south, buildings which are now in use as flats and are of three storeys in height.

To the north of the site is the car park off Orchardleigh Road, to the east outbuildings and garages at the rears of those properties in High Street, whilst on the west side of St John's Road there are large mainly semi-detached houses of two storeys in height. The land slopes comparatively steeply from the south down to the north and through the car park as far as Orchardleigh Road. The area is one of predominantly residential use.

Outline consent sought for block of flats. Accompanied by plans for guidance purposes, all matters are reserved for future consideration, but scheme submitted shows a large almost square building of three floors, two flats per floor, each comprising kitchen, bathroom, lounge/dining area and two bedrooms, one with a shower room off. Sketch elevations show the building to be of similar depth to the adjoining, to have feature towers under pyramid roofs, but with hipped roofs to the main building and decorative band courses to the masonry walls. The east elevation shows that the building would be at least one floor lower than the adjoining property to the south mainly due to differences in ground levels. Pedestrian access only; no on site car parking, but space around the building contained within a walled garden also incorporating bin store and steps to lower ground floor.

Within development envelope as shown on Shanklin inset of UDP. Subject to Policies D1, D2 and H5 regarding housing and development adjoining residential properties in urban areas. Also subject to parking policy TR16 regarding parking guidelines which show that the site is within zone 2 where 0-50% of maximum car parking would be required on site, that is to say between 0-6 spaces.

Also subject to PPG3 (housing) which encourages higher densities in urban areas and PPG13 (transport) which discourages the provision of on site parking in central areas in order to maximise development density.

(a) accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas with increased densities for both housing and other uses at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; and

(b) use parking policies to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys.

Petition submitted on behalf of eleven local residents objecting strongly to the development.

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of loss of light, poor vehicular access, danger to pedestrians.

This is an outline application seeking the principle of development on the site with a block of flats of an unspecified number. The plans submitted confirm six units could fit on this site, it should be borne in mind that the site is located within an existing residential area and, in the main, is surrounded by existing residential uses, although it is in very close proximity to the town centre, shops and services.

The thrust of current Governmental policy is to increase the density of residential developments in the urban areas in order to maximise the numbers of dwellings created and make the most economic use of available urban land. In this instance, this application seeks to provide six units on a site without car parking (adjoining an existing public car park) on a site of similar proportions to that which gained planning consent for seven units at Rychris Court. The densities are similar and indeed there are five or six flats within the existing building adjoining the site to the south, accommodation on three floors.

In terms of scale and massing, the new plans submitted show that the building would be of similar proportions to the existing and therefore consistent with both scale and mass of properties in the vicinity. Much of the building's west elevation would be below adjoining road level and certainly below adjoining boundary wall. The plans show there to be a distance of 3.8 metres between the new building and that adjoining and a shared amenity area in front of the building behind the wall marking the boundary with St John's Road.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations in the Evaluation section above, the development of the site with a block of flats is considered consistent with Policies D1, D2, H5 and TR16 of the Development Plan and consistent with the thrust of PPG3 and PPG13 regarding housing and transport respectively.

4	The flatted development, the subject of this permission, shall include no vehicular access nor parking whatsoever. Reason: To comply with the Council's Policy TR16 regarding the provision of car parking within town centres.

TCP/20941/A P/01936/01 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown North

Registration Date: 23/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593

Change of use from staff accommodation for the Ocean Hotel to a house in multiple occupation

95 Avenue Road, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO368DZ

Application relates to substantial detached property in residential area situated on corner of St John’s Crescent and Avenue Road, Sandown. The building is currently vacant and appears in a poor state of repair with overgrown garden.

Established Use Certificate issued in 1992 for the use of land for seasonal staff accommodation for staff employed at the Ocean Hotel, Sandown between April and October every year for a maximum of twenty persons.

External alterations consist mostly of repairs, bricking up of opening at ground floor on north elevation and a new window on the southern elevation at first floor. The premises will have six regular occupants utilising six of the seven bedrooms. The seventh bedroom will be used for a visiting Manager or very short-term (emergency) accommodation during any overlap period when a long-term resident is due to be rehoused elsewhere and a new resident requires secure accommodation.

Covering letter accompanying application and details of Charity have been submitted. Letter says Mothers Against Drugs Defacto (MADD) is committed to providing shared accommodation for recovering addicts in a safe environment, whilst at the same time providing full support in the form of advice, therapy or further education. The properties under the management of MADD are not treatment centres or hostels. There is no time limit on the duration of stay by house members and the houses are self managed with the house members reporting weekly to the Scheme Manager through the Team Leader. Each house member will, in turn, take on the role of Team Leader on a weekly basis. This is an important aspect of living in the house since this encourages members to take responsibility for themselves and other house members.

All house members must sign a contract covering basic house rules. Members have to demonstrate a continuing commitment to their recovery programme by attending regular meetings and following organised recovery programmes.

The letter also states that MADD are acutely aware of the sensitivity of proposals within the community. The Mother Against Drugs Defacto contract includes conditions of residency to abstain from taking all mood-altering chemicals, not to enter into illegal activity. Contract involves taking part in random drug tests and also states any house member who uses will be immediately discharged.

Relevant Planning Policy is H11 Houses in Multiple Occupation (HM0s) states that “planning applications for houses in multiple occupation will only be approved where:

a there is no significant loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers or adverse impact on the character of the area;

An HMO can be defined as a dwelling containing more than six people, not related, living as a communal household, and sharing living, dining, kitchen and toilet facilities. HMOs provide a valuable supply of housing at low cost for people who are often with low income. Their retention may be acceptable if minimum standards, including fire and environmental health can be met, i.e the property is capable of meeting requirements involving sound insulation, means of escape and fire regulation.”

Main planning considerations are suitability or otherwise of property for this purpose, effect any such use would have on amenities or environment of residents in area, acceptable amenity area and easily accessible public transport.

Sandown Town Council object on grounds Sandown already has two such establishments, another would be severe strain on overstretched resources of Police, Social Services, Medical Centre. The Town Council also state they have received many letters of objection from residents with young families in vicinity with concerns for their children.

Environmental Health Section have no adverse comment but advise consult housing/fire safety regarding means of escape, fire detection and refuse. Also request advice to applicant regarding Health and Safety of employment of persons at work.

Housing Section raise no objection in principle to the intended use. Senior Housing Officer confirms he will write to applicants and send information pack regarding HMOs. However, from reading details, appears this may be shared house and case law has tended to put shared houses outside of Housing Act HMO legislation.

Building Control Officer confirms building work alterations will be covered by Building Control Legislation but improvement of means of escape may not depending on use and level of care provided.

Social Services have been consulted and any comments will be reported at the meeting.

A Petition objecting to proposal has been received containing 64 signatures. Twenty eight individual letters have been received from local residents objecting to proposal on following grounds:

2. Inappropriate location, due to residential character of area, impact on local residents, particularly given proximity of school in locality, number of elderly residents and disabled residents.

This application seeks to change a building used for staff accommodation up to twenty people. The level of activity has therefore been established.

Applications of this nature contribute to the full range of normal housing provision and whilst such proposals inevitably attract local concern, it is important to bear in mind that the identity of occupants or type of person to be accommodation by reference to age or other characteristics is not itself land use planning consideration.

The main consideration to determine this application is whether it complies with Policy H11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

With regard to effect on use of amenities of other residents, in land use terms use itself is appropriately located in residential area. The property is detached, in a town location, close to the town centre, accessible to public transport and has a garden area. An assessment needs to be made based on whether the level of proposed usage is appropriate and whether it would result in any undue disturbance or cause detrimental change to the residential character and amenity of area as a whole which would justify withholding permission.

In terms of intensity of use, given property’s previous use for up to twenty people, it is considered no reasonable planning objection can be raised in terms of overdevelopment of site as there is a reduction in intensity. Also, given detached nature of property, limited external alterations to building, proposals are unlikely to have undue adverse effect on amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. Alterations to building should improve visual appearance.

Whilst concerns expressed by residents are appreciated, it is difficult to objectively assess such comments in relation to whether perceived problems referred to would occur and the Local Planning Authority would find it difficult to sustain any such objections because of lack of evidence. It should also be noted that when such matters do fall to be considered by Inspectorate at appeal, it is common for such objections to be rejected on basis that they are

subjective comments which lack evidential detail or are matters which are not planning considerations. Public concern and fear are matters which are capable of constituting material planning considerations and accordingly should be given appropriate weight in decision making process.

In conclusion, it is inevitable and understandable such use will attract local concern. In assessing that concern however, it is important relevant planning considerations are taken into account in deciding whether this premises is suitable for proposed use.

Having given due regard and appropriate to all material considerations outlined in this report, I do not consider there is sufficient reason to substantiate refusal of planning permission and outweigh the primacy of the IW Unitary Development Plan Policy H11 and recommend accordingly.

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.

3	The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the alterations hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCPL/24392 P/01268/01 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 03/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Alterations and conversion of stables and adjoining store/tack room to form dwelling

Apse Manor Country Retreat, Apse Manor Road, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO377PN

LBC/24392/A P/01269/01 Parish/Name: Newchurch Ward: Newchurch

Registration Date: 03/10/2001 - Listed Building Consent

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

LBC for alterations and conversion of stables and adjoining store/tack room to form dwelling

Apse Manor Country Retreat, Apse Manor Road, Shanklin, Isle Of Wight, PO377PN

These applications relate to a small detached stable building situated to the north of the complex known as Apse Manor Farm which is situated on the western side of Apse Manor Road, in a rural location to the north of the Godshill to Shanklin Road. The complex comprises a group of historic farm buildings now converted to residential use together with the property known as Apse Manor itself and there is a more modern agricultural building situated to the north. There is also a dwelling on the western side of the road which was formerly the old forge and cart shed which was converted for residential use some time ago.

Members will be aware that the traditional farm buildings have previously been converted for residential use and planning consent also exists for conversion of the former cart shed forming the northern part of the range of the buildings. There is an access track leading to the north of the old barns serving the stable building which is the subject of this application and the other farm buildings to the north. The building itself comprises a stone built structure at the western end under a gabled tiled roof with a later single storey building attached to the eastern end comprising a mixture of natural stone and brickwork with asbestos clad roofing. The western end of the building is relatively small measuring approximately 7.5 metres by 5.5 metres having natural stone walls with two stable doors. This element of the building has a comparatively steeply pitched and gabled tiled roof and there are remains of the original stone walling on the northern elevation extending to the side and incorporated in part of the later structure which has a corrugated clad roof.

The site levels fall to the north and east with a maximum drop of approximately 2 metres across the site.

The stable building now under consideration is situated outside the main barn complex which has been converted for residential use, although it is an historic structure forming part of the original farm complex and is situated approximately 10 metres to the north of the rear of the other converted buildings outside the main complex of buildings.

There have been no previous applications relating to this particular building, although as Members are aware, the historic farm buildings adjacent have been converted for residential use in accordance with consents granted in past years. Consent also exists for residential conversion of the open fronted cart shed although this has not yet been carried out.

The submitted plans show conversion of the existing stables and tack room to form a self contained unit of living accommodation comprising two bedrooms with a kitchen/breakfast room and lounge/diner. The plans indicate that the existing openings on the southern and western elevations would be reused with five additional window openings inserted in the northern elevation, together with a raised deck and external stairway giving access to the lower ground levels. The corrugated clad roof to the lower section of the building would be replaced with slate incorporating two traditional roof lights.

A Structural Engineer's report has been submitted which concludes that although the buildings are not constructed to current standards and are suffering from some distortion due to previous imperfections and settlement the building is in a satisfactory structural condition and the proposed conversion could be carried out without substantial alteration or reconstruction. Some structural repairs and strengthening will be required particularly to the original front wall of the tack room and the west gable.

Supporting information has also been submitted by the applicant and his agent outlining the history of repairs and renovation of properties on the site as a whole which have been restored and converted to residential use. It is also indicated that the close proximity of the stables with obvious encumbrances of dung heap etc attracting flies and a feed store which encourages vermin, however carefully maintained, is unsuitable to retain for the existing use in close proximity to the converted barns. It is indicated that the dwelling would be occupied by the applicant's daughter and her partner and conversion would enhance the whole area in keeping with the other properties so that it is no longer just a blot on the landscape.

It is also indicated that the existing structure is relatively small making it's suitability for commercial use exceedingly restricted. Bearing in mind it's location any use for tourism purposes would be un-viable, use for business purposes would also be unattainable bearing in mind the location of the property divorced from the business environment. Close proximity of other dwellings could mean alternative uses would constitute an invasion of privacy.

Comment is made that the structure itself comprises a natural stone building under a peg tiled roof which has been completely refurbished within recent times at considerable expense. The remainder of the structure is clad with corrugated asbestos roofing with very large roof lights which is considered ugly and in need of repair and a possible health hazard. The replacement of this roof with natural stone would also be an expensive exercise but would improve the property.

The raised decking on the northern side is essential in order to provide access to the lower ground level without having to regrade the existing ground levels. As access and recreational space is required on this frontage irrespective of the intended use the balcony approach has been proposed. This would be constructed in seasoned timber having a natural appearance which in time would weather to an unobtrusive neutral base and combined with selected planting would blend with the area.

Following further discussions, additional information has been received from the applicant in respect of possible tourist use of the building indicating that permanent occupation by a family member would finance the conversion whereas use as holiday accommodation would not be practical as the applicant and his wife are in full time employment and would not have time to manage it's use. All other residential conversions at Apse Manor have been approved in the past and logic would indicate that residential use would be most appropriate in this case.

The buildings are situated outside any designated development envelope and are in a rural location which was previously part of the designated area of greater landscape value. Strategic Policies S28 and S6 and detailed Policies D1 and H9 are relevant.

The stable building itself, together with the nearby farm buildings are Listed Grade II and UDP Policies B1 and B2 together with guidance in PPG15 would be applicable.

Unitary Development Plan Policy C17 "Conversion and Reuse of Rural Buildings" is considered to be applicable and this indicates that applications for reuse and adaption of rural buildings when employment, recreational or tourism purposes will be approved provided that certain criteria are complied with and also indicates that applications for reuse and adaption for residential purposes must comply both similar criteria and will be refused unless every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use, or residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for the above uses and the building is of historic and architectural merit. Supporting text indicates that reuse and adaption of rural buildings has an important role in meeting the needs of rural areas for employment, tourism and recreation. It can reduce demands for new buildings in the countryside, provide jobs and reduce vacancy and dereliction. Residential conversion is likely to have minimal economic impact although in some cases it could play a role in meeting identified housing needs. In the past many of the Island's finite resource of barns and other agricultural buildings have been allowed to convert to residential use, sometimes resulting in unsympathetic refurbishment and treatments which have detracted from their original appearance as an intrinsic part of the traditional Island countryside.

The above policies and guidance are in line with Government guidelines contained in PPG7.

Environment Agency have no objection in principle to proposal but indicate that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 approval would be required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters.

Letter received from Islandwatch objecting to proposals as no alternative use appears to have been considered so residential conversion would be counter to Unitary Development Plan policy. This amounts to residential development in the countryside.

These applications are for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for conversion of the existing stables and tack room to form a small self-contained unit of residential accommodation.

The building comprises two linked elements, with the main part being constructed of natural stone under a gabled tiled roof and is listed as being of architectural and historic interest forming part of the group of former farm buildings at Apse Manor Farm.

The determining factors are considered to be firstly, whether the proposed conversion of this rural building for residential purposes would comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan policies and national guidelines and, secondly whether the proposed alterations to the building itself would serve to retain it's character and historical integrity as a traditional rural building which is listed for it's architectural and historic interest.

With regard to the first issue, it is acknowledged that the existing building is located close to the remainder of the farm buildings which have been converted in the past to residential accommodation in accordance with previous policies in the Rural Areas Local Plan.

Although the stable building is part of the historic group of farm structures, it does lie outside the main group, to the north of the main barns. The residential conversion of the farm complex has been contained within the courtyard of the former farmyard and conversion of the stable building would extend the residential environment further to the north.

The applicants agent has provided some information with regard to the size and location of the building indicating in his view that this would not be suitable for industrial or business purposes. However, no evidence has been provided to support this opinion and whilst it is acknowledged that the building is in a relatively isolated location, it may not be totally impractical to find some small scale business user who could convert and occupy this building to the benefit of the rural economy.

Similarly, the applicants have indicated that proposed use of the building for tourism purposes would not be practical given their circumstances as it would be difficult to manage the unit for this purpose. Members will however be aware that a number of small holiday units have been allowed in countryside locations and no convincing evidence has been provided to prove that holiday use would not be a viable option in this location. No evidence has been provided in respect of marketing the building for business or tourist uses.

Notwithstanding the above information, the building is currently in use for stabling of horses which, apparently is the original use of the building and is a purpose for which it seems to be evidently suitable. It is appreciated that the building is in fairly close proximity to the residential units in the nearby converted barns but I am not aware of any problems or complaints which have arisen from the existing use. Advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 relates to Listed Buildings and indicates that where possible the original intended use for such buildings should be maintained.

With regard to the second issue, the submitted plans indicate that the existing openings on the southern and western elevations would be retained and the overall appearance of these elements of the buildings would not be significantly altered. The lower section of the building would have the asbestos clad roof replaced with natural slate which would result in an improvement to the overall appearance and integrity of the building.

I am, however, concerned about the extent of alterations to the northern elevation which includes the installation of five new window/door openings and the erection of a raised deck supported on timber posts with railings and external steps leading down to the lower ground level. The new openings would be of traditional style and appearance, but the number and proportion of openings would significantly change this element of the building which is clearly visible in the landscape. There are no existing openings in this wall and the overall simple detailing of this part of the building is considered to be part of it's historic appearance and integrity. The provision of new openings and raised decking, together with enclosed garden area would significantly change the character and setting of this building and effectively extend the residential curtilage of the whole complex to the north.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that insufficient information has been provided to prove that residential conversion of this building would be the only acceptable option as a last resort in order to retain a building of architectural and historic merit as a feature of the countryside. Whilst I appreciate the applicants' comments regarding previous residential conversions of the existing buildings, I do not consider this would necessarily justify conversion of this detached building on the northern side which lies outside the main group.

I am also concerned that the extent of alterations proposed would significantly change the character and appearance of the building and these, together with the proposal for raised decking and provision of a residential curtilage would harm the character and setting of this Grade II Listed Building and serve to increase the visual impact of the development in the countryside. I therefore consider the proposals to be contrary to the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies B1, D1 and C17 and have no alternative but to recommend the applications for refusal.

The proposed alterations including the insertion of new window and door openings on the northern elevation, together with the provision of a raised timber deck and external steps and the provision of a residential curtilage on the northern side of the building would be inappropriate development compromising the character, quality and setting of the Listed Building and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy B1 of the Unitary Development Plan and guidelines contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.

TCP/04526/C P/01911/00 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 01/12/2000 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Change of use of art studio on ground floor and bike repairers on 1st floor to a single dwellinghouse (re-advertised application)

The Rear of 35, High Street, Cowes, Isle of Wight, PO31

Members will recall considering this application at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 3 July 2001 when it was resolved to grant permission subject to the withdrawal of the Environment Agency holding objection. The Environment Agency subsequently objected on grounds that the residence will be susceptible to tidal flooding and that this is an unacceptable situation as any property flooding will cause distress to the occupants of the building and lead to additional pressure on emergency services. This matter has been discussed in detail with the applicant and Environment Agency and the purpose of this report is to consider the outcome of these negotiations.

"The Agency is unable to determine the risk of flooding from the information submitted by the applicant on the application. In order to make a determination, the applicant should supply the planning levels of the development (to Ordnance Datum) together with levels of existing ground and any relevant features (bank levels etc). Until these have been supplied and assessed the Agency assumes that the development is at risk of flooding."

Cowes Town Council has not yet commented regarding the revised scheme. Their comments will be reported at Committee if received.

Occupier of flat directly above application site has written four letters objecting to the scheme as originally proposed and also to the revised scheme. His concerns with the revised scheme are as follows:

The sign outside of application property advertises dwellings as being suitable for up to twenty people ..... Ideal for a crew.

Questions how building of this size and facilities can prove anything but an environmental disaster if it is to be lived in by twenty people.

Objector fails to see how this development can be classified as domestic when it is being clearly advertised as a commercial rooming house.

Objector registers his concern regarding the retrospective nature of application and also takes the opportunity to refer to other nearby developments which seem to have occurred in advance of receiving planning permission.

Application relates to a two storey building located behind 35 High Street, Cowes. Building benefits from a pedestrian access via a covered alleyway between Nos 34 and 35 High Street almost opposite the entrance to Red Funnel. Site is shown to be within the Cowes Conservation Area.

Application form indicates that building was previously used as an artist's studio on the ground floor with a bicycle repairers at first floor level. Objector suggests that these uses are unauthorised and that the established use of building is as a social club, known as The Syndicate Club. Planning records indicate that 35 High Street, Cowes was formerly the British Legion Club, and before that the Red Lion Public House. There was an application for a new shop front in 1955 suggesting that this unit has been used for retail purposes since that time. The use of the hall at the rear (application building) as a billiard hall probably continued for a number of years. It is thought that the hall was still in use in 1993. The building has been used for repairing bicycles for approximately the last four years. Given the limited time that it has been used for this purpose, the cycle repairers would have been unlawful.

Consent is now sought for the use of this two storey building as a single dwelling house. Submitted plans show a lounge/hallway, dining room, bedroom and shower room on ground floor with lounge, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom at first floor level including a mezzanine deck above providing a further sleeping area.

Application as originally submitted was for a cafe/restaurant on ground floor with a flat above. The cafe/restaurant component was withdrawn because of difficulties with providing a sufficient kitchen extract system together with the cost implications. Determining factors are therefore considered to be policy and whether the proposed use would have an adverse effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by a neighbouring property occupier.

The site is shown to be within the town centre boundary for Cowes as shown on the IOW Unitary Development Plan, adjacent the retail only frontage area and within a Conservation Area. Application site occupies a position behind a line of shops fronting the High Street with access being provided between shops. With this in mind, I am of the opinion that the proposed use does not conflict with the retail policies contained in the UDP. Policy H10 refers to residential development above ground floor level in town centres and states that this will be approved provided the change of use does not prejudice the operations of the ground floor unit, that the development is not likely to be affected by adjacent or nearby incompatible uses and that parking guidelines are followed. Whilst this policy is not directly applicable because the unit in question is behind and not above a shop, I am of the opinion that there are similarities in the nature of development and that this policy should carry weight in the determination of this application. Had the building in question had a substantial frontage onto the High Street, then an A1, A2 or A3 use may have only been acceptable, but given the site's backland position, it is felt that the proposed residential use does accord with policy and can in fact make a positive contribution to the vitality and viability of the town centre. With these points in mind, I am of the opinion that the proposal constitutes an acceptable use of this building in policy and principle terms.

Consent is sought for the use of building as a single dwelling house. Objector has referred to a sign in window advertising unit for rent and stating that it is suitable for up to twenty people. The use as a single dwelling house falls within Class C3 of the Use Classes Order which allows for up to six non-family members to live together. Suggested occupancy of up to twenty people is obviously far greater than this and could be considered as a house in multiple occupancy. This is a use that would clearly require planning permission. I am aware however that many properties in Cowes are occupied by a large number of non-family members throughout July and August. It would be difficult to take action against many similar breaches during such a short period of the year. Should the multiple occupancy use continue for a longer period, then appropriate action can be taken. Should Members be minded to approve this application, I would suggest that a covering letter be sent with planning permission setting out the limitations of the planning consent for a single residence. Members will note that the Environment Agency has placed a holding objection on this application on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted. It is anticipated that this matter will be resolved before Committee with the outcome being reported to Members.

Matters relating to the potential for flooding and occupancy have been of concern to the Environment Agency and neighbouring flat occupier respectively. Both matters will be considered further in this report.

Since raising an objection to this application, the Environment Agency have made the following observations:

"The Agency has since been advised that the development has already been constructed, and as a result it will be difficult to raise floor levels further. The Agency would therefore recommend that the property is adequately flood proofed by, for example, bringing services in from the ceiling, utilising tiles for flooring on the ground floor, using sealable air bricks and sealable doors, ensuring there is emergency access available during times of flood and not locating sleeping accommodation on the ground floor".

It has been confirmed by applicant and the Building Control section that there are no air bricks, there is a tiled floor and that there are two exits on the ground floor and two on the first floor. Furthermore, there will be no sleeping accommodation on the ground floor once the building is used as a single dwelling house. The Environment Agency have been made aware of this information and comment as follows:

"It appears that the applicant has considered the Agency advice in relation to flood risk and therefore the Agency has no objection in principle to the development as proposed. It is still recommended, however, that the flood proofing measures advised in my last fax be considered by the applicant".

The only measures suggested by the Environment Agency which have not been incorporated into the development are sealable doors and services coming in at ceiling levels. The latter is difficult to require as the building, in common with most buildings in the vicinity, would have previously had services coming in at ground floor level and the Local Planning Authority would have had no control over this. I am therefore of the opinion that the Local Planning Authority could not substantiate a reason for refusal based on the fact that the property is served by mains which come in at ground floor level. With regard to sealable doors, I am of the opinion that this can be subject of an appropriate condition should Members be minded to approve this application.

Taking the above into consideration and also bearing in mind that the Environment Agency have withdrawn their earlier objection, I am of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason on flooding grounds to recommend refusal of this application.

In terms of concern expressed over occupancy, it has recently been publicised that building has been occupied by up to twenty nurses. This level of use constitutes a house in multiple occupancy which is unauthorised without the benefit of planning permission. This is therefore a matter which has been subject of Enforcement investigations. It has recently been confirmed that this use will terminate at the end of February and that the property is currently being marketed by present owner. Should Members be minded to approve this application then I would suggest that a covering letter is issued with the Decision Notice outlining the limitations of the planning consent for a single dwelling house.

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 use of building as a single dwelling house accords with policy in respect of encouraging uses which contribute to the viability and vitality in town centres.

Within one month of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority providing details of ground floor doors which shall be fitted with a watertight seal. Such approved details shall be fully implemented within one month from the date when the details are agreed and retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to comply with Policy G6 of the IOW Unitary Development Plan.

10.

TCP/06934/B P/01866/01 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton

Registration Date: 18/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Demolition of dwelling & garage; construction of a 2 storey block of 4 maisonettes & 1 house

4 Orchard Close, Freshwater, Isle Of Wight, PO409BQ

Freshwater Parish Council raise no objection, but feel that the site is rather small for this number of buildings.

One letter received from owner of adjacent property objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Proposal would result in overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly from windows at first floor level serving lounge areas.

Proposal is considered to represent extensive development given the size of the site, with over-large frontage close to their boundary giving potential problems of noise and extra traffic in the immediate area.

Objector also comments that some of their land may at some stage be eligible for future development and seeks satisfaction that the proposed access road indicated on the submitted plans would be sufficient so that it could be used for some future development.

Application relates to roughly rectangular shaped area of land located on eastern side of Orchard Close immediately adjacent turning head at northern end of road. Site is presently occupied by bungalow and is within area where buildings are of varying design providing predominantly two storey accommodation. Buildings immediately adjacent to and south of application site and those on opposite side of road to west are two storey in height providing accommodation arranged as flats/maisonettes.

Application seeks planning permission for demolition of bungalow and erection of two storey building providing four flats and one terraced house. Each flat would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, bathroom/WC and two bedrooms with house located centrally within block providing accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen/dining room and WC at ground floor level with three bedrooms and bathroom at first floor level. Parking for six cars would be provided across frontage of site at right angles to road. Plans which accompanied original submission show a strip of land along southern boundary of site with maximum width of approximately 4 metres free of development. In accompanying letter applicant's agent indicates that his client would wish to maintain this gap between the proposed development and the adjoining property in order to provide a possible future access to any adjoining land that may become available for development. Revised plans were subsequently received showing building repositioned roughly centrally within site, omitting potential access strip.

Determining factors in considering application are whether redevelopment of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether building is of an appropriate size, scale and design or whether development would detract from character of area and amenities of

neighbouring residential properties. In addition, consideration should be given as to whether development as proposed would preclude future development of adjoining land and whether this would provide sustainable reason for refusal.

Site is within the built-up area and settlement of Freshwater as defined by the development envelope on the IW Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S2 - Development will be encouraged on land which has been previously developed (brown field sites), rather than undeveloped (greenfield) sites.

Whilst providing one dwelling and four flats, when viewed from highway in front of site, development would have appearance of small terrace of three dwellings. Building would be constructed under a hipped roof and although the ridge height would be higher than that of the adjacent property, it should be noted that the building would be on slightly higher ground level and is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Therefore, having regard to these factors and the mix of dwelling types, styles and designs in the locality, I am satisfied that proposal will not detract from the amenities and character of the locality. Furthermore, building to south of and immediately adjacent application site and those on opposite side of Orchard Close provide accommodation in the form of maisonettes or flats and I am therefore satisfied that proposal represents an appropriate form of development for this locality.

Whilst proposal would result in an intensification of the residential use of this site, I would draw Members' attention to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 - Housing, which provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing and encourages the provision of a 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 pressure off development of green field sites and to make more efficient use of land by adopting higher densities. In this instance, having regard to the advice contained in PPG3 and the type of development on adjoining sites, I do not consider that the density is excessive in this instance.

The layout of the accommodation within the proposed building includes the provision of kitchen and lounge windows at first floor level in the rear elevation which would overlook the garden area of the adjacent property. However, it should be noted that this property, which fronts Hooke Hill, has a substantial rear garden and overlooking would be limited to the area furthest from the dwelling. Furthermore, it should be noted that windows in the rear elevation of the adjacent property at first floor level also serve kitchen accommodation. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjacent property or that a reason for refusal on these grounds would be sustainable.

Area of land to east of application site forms part of substantial rear garden to property fronting Hooke Hill and it is accepted that this has future development potential subject to proposal incorporating an acceptable layout and means of access. Whilst the plans which accompanied the original submission indicated that a strip of land having maximum width of approximately 4 metres along the southern boundary of the site would be retained in order to provide future access to the adjoining site, it is considered that this would be of inadequate width to provide acceptable access to serve any future development. Therefore, provision of acceptable access over the application site would necessitate a reduction in the size of the building and the number of units to be provided. I consider that suitable alternative means of access to the adjoining land could potentially be provided over the car park to the adjacent development to the south. This would of course require agreement of the owners of that property and would involve relocation of the parking spaces which serve that development. Alternatively, access to the adjoining land could be provided by the demolition of the house fronting Hooke Hill. In any event, it should be noted that the area of land in question has not been identified in the Council's current Urban Capacity Study as a potential development site. Therefore, having regard to these factors, I do not consider that it would be reasonable to seek a reduction in the size of the proposed building in order to create an area of land which would provide acceptable access to the adjacent property or that refusal of the application on grounds that it prevented access would be sustainable.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the development represents an acceptable form of development which would not detract from the amenities and character of the locality or that it would have an excessive or unacceptable impact on adjoining properties.

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 any of the units within the building 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.

2 That applicants are advised that soundproofing should be provided between the units of accommodation and that it would be a requirement of the Building Regulations that such provision is carried out to a satisfactory standard.

11.

TCP/08383/C P/01809/01 Parish/Name: Niton Ward: Chale Niton and Whitwell

Registration Date: 22/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550

Use of part of dwelling as a showroom for the sale of home & garden artifacts; change of use from garden area to tea garden (re-advertised application)

Sunrise, Newport Road, Niton, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO382DD

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend refusal on grounds of lack of parking and lack of amenities e.g. toilets.

Highway Engineer raised no objection to application as originally submitted which consisted of just the tea garden. His comments relating to both the tea gardens and retail use are awaited.

Principal Environmental Health Officer has visited the site and states that the likelihood of any adverse impact is very low based upon the current and proposed method of operation but does recommend conditions to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring property occupiers.

One letter received from neighbouring property occupier to south, who is concerned about the parking situation which "is already intolerable" in this part of Newport Road. Objector advises that property has been used for the sale of garden artifacts since the Summer of 2001.

Application relates to a detached property on the eastern side of Newport Road, Niton, approximately 70 metres north of its junction with Rectory Road. Building is approximately halfway between Niton Garage and the village shop which itself is located on the corner of Newport Road and Rectory Road.

Consent is sought to continue using part of the dwelling as a showroom for the sale of home and garden artifacts, as well as the change of use from garden area to tea garden. The following information has been provided by applicant in support of this application:

"We can confirm that the area shown on the plan as "showroom" measuring 10 square metres is used for the sale of garden and home artifacts, at present we open Wednesday to Saturday, 10 - 4pm, but wish to extend the opening times to that of the proposed tea garden, as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer. We can also confirm that a removable barrier, e.g. chain and removable posts or moveable planter boxes will be placed on the forecourt boundary with the road during trading hours, so that customers cannot park on the forecourt and so use the adequate parking areas in the village. We have always respected our neighbours' needs for parking and will continue to do so. We have found that our customers, by nature, park in the village and walk round all the business premises that the village has to offer."

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the proposed business use of property would have an adverse effect on the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers, or the character of area in general. Consideration also has to be given to the highway implications of proposed use.

Application site is shown to be within the development envelope for Niton as identified on the IW Unitary Development Plan. Policy G4 refers to Locational Criteria for Development and states

that developments will harmonise with the surroundings. T2 refers to Tourism Related Development Other Than Accommodation and states that tourism/recreational facilities will be approved provided access, parking and design are satisfactory.

Site is located in Niton village centre where there is a variety of commercial uses including garage, shop, pub, butchers etc. It would therefore appear that a certain degree of commercial activity does take place in Niton and the matter for consideration is whether proposal represents an acceptable addition to this part of Niton. Given the current level of activity and in the absence of an objection from Environmental Health, I am of the opinion that proposal will not have such a significant impact on amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring property occupiers or the character of area in general to warrant refusal of application. However, I would suggest that consent is initially granted for a temporary period in order for the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact that this business use may have.

Concern has been expressed that proposed business use will generate a higher volume of traffic which cannot be accommodated on site. It is recognised that existing access and parking at the property are not suitable for patrons of application property and applicant has therefore offered to erect a temporary barrier in order to prevent customers from parking on site and to encourage them to use other parking facilities in Niton. Subject to the views of the Highway Engineer, I am of the opinion that there are no justifiable reasons to recommend refusal of application. Highway Engineer's comments will be reported to Committee if received.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that consent should be granted on a temporary basis in order for the impact of proposed use to be assessed and the matter revaluated in twelve months time. I would also recommend further conditions should Members decide to grant consent in order to restrict opening hours as well as preventing customers from parking on site. I am therefore of the opinion that proposed use accords with policy.

The use of the building as a showroom for the sale of home and garden artifacts and the use of garden as tea-garden shall be discontinued and the building and land restored to its former condition on or before 31 March 2003 in accordance with a scheme of works submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use and to comply with Policy G4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The existing access and hardstanding shall not be used by customers of the tea garden or home/garden artifact business and a barrier shall be erected across the access to prevent customers from gaining vehicular entry to the site. Such barrier shall be provided within 28 days of the date of this decision in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Only such approved barrier shall be erected which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Within one month of the date of this approval, screen planting shall be provided along the southern boundary of the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such screen planting shall be retained and maintained thereafter and replaced if it dies or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, becomes defective within five years of first being planted.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with policy G4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

This permission shall only authorise the use of premises as a tea garden selling food of low odour/low grease food category unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy G4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The property shall only be open to the public between the hours 09:00 to 18:00 hours daily unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy G4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

6	No recorded or live music shall be played or other entertainment permitted to take place in the tea garden, connected with the business use, at any time. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring property occupiers and to comply with Policy G4 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

12.

TCP/12592/D P/01977/01 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown South

Registration Date: 12/11/2001 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Demolition of single storey extension to rear of hotel; outline for residential development

land to rear and adjacent Chester Lodge Hotel, 7, Beachfield Road, Sandown, PO36

Two letters of objection from local residents on grounds of intrusive development and loss of privacy; increased vehicular flow as the hotel will continue to trade in addition to the dwellings.

This application relates to the rear part of a site which is currently used as a hotel located almost centrally between the junction of New Street and Royal Crescent on the north west side of Beachfield Road at Sandown. The existing hotel is a two storey property with modern additions with an existing access located on its north east end of the frontage onto Beachfield Road. The rear wing of the existing property is a single storey flat roofed structure with much of the area surrounding formerly gardens, but now overgrown.

To the north western boundary is a brick and corrugated steel roofed depot and to both east and south western boundaries are large properties fronting Royal Crescent and New Street respectively, properties which are comparatively close to the rear boundaries.

Permission is sought for residential development and plans indicate a terrace of six two storey properties in a 'C' shaped configuration fronting in a south easterly direction towards the rear of the hotel. The drive would be extended into a parking and turning area for six vehicles, one space for each of the six units. Only ground floor plans have been supplied and these indicate that the properties would have a kitchen/dining room/lounge on ground floor, but no details have been submitted for first floor. A front elevation shows that the properties would be contained within a single building of two storeys in height. The plan indicates that such a building would be within 2.4 metres off the north eastern boundary and 3 metres of the south western boundary.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle, access, effect on adjoining properties and density.

In principle terms, the development does not result in the loss of hotel accommodation and on the face of it would not appear to be contrary to Policy T5.

Access to the site is proposed via that existing and does not result in the loss of any existing car parking. It is apparent that the Highway Engineer has raised no objection to the scheme, although it is suggested that the scheme does not incorporate adequate space for larger vehicles to turn on site.

In terms of density, the proposal covers a good proportion of the site, with its associated parking and turning. In the form indicated in the scheme, whilst it leaves fairly substantial amenity areas for each unit, the two ends of the terrace are in close proximity to the common boundaries (2.4 metres and 3 metres respectively), gable end walls which will inevitably contain windows, probably bedrooms which will overlook the adjoining properties as boundaries could not be of sufficient height to provide acceptable screening. A reduction in numbers would enable greater distances between the buildings and the common boundaries and the ability to lay out the site differently, especially in terms of the shape of the building's footprint, to enable windows to be incorporated in elevations facing a less sensitive direction. Accordingly, I consider that six dwellings on this site is overdevelopment which would be out of keeping with the general densities in the area and detrimental to the amenities and privacy of adjoining properties.

Having given due regard to all the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the development of the site is proposed is considered to be of excessive density with an adverse overlooking effect on adjoining properties and therefore contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The proposals would result in an overdevelopment of the site at an excessive density, which in turn would create conditions likely to give rise to overlooking, loss of outlook and be of an overbearing nature to the detriment of prospective occupants of this development as well as being out of character with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding area and therefore contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

13.

TCP/13752/F P/01780/01 Parish/Name: Godshill Ward: Wroxall and Godshill

Registration Date: 24/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mrs. J. Penney Tel: (01983) 823593

Erection of single storey building for use as cattery

Pound Farmhouse, Shanklin Road, Sandford, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO383AW

Godshill Parish Council recommend refusal as from its observations previous requirements have not been adhered to.

"Parish Council point out that the conditions regarding screening/landscaping (part of the conditions of the previous granted permission for the cattery) have not been complied with.

Although this is an application separate from the former it seems reasonable that either enforcement action is taken to ensure full compliance or a condition covering the matter is applied to this application which requires the applicant to achieve full screening before any further work is carried out."

Licensing Section raise no concern as long as complying with licensing conditions.

This application relates to the erection of a single storey building for use as a cattery at existing cattery site. Property is located on southern side of the main Shanklin Road at Sandford. The proposed cattery is shown to be a rectangular building constructed in block work 4.4 metres wide by 15.4 metres long with painted finish and artificial slate roof to be located on the western boundary of the site. The overall height of the building is shown to be 3.5 metres to its ridged roof. In addition, there are outside cat runs measuring a maximum of 1.5 metres high along the east and west elevations.

The original cattery building was approved subject to conditions in October 1999. A revised scheme, including cat runs and isolation building was approved subject to conditions in august 2001. It is sited 4.5 metres behind the proposed cattery. Plans show new hedge to be planted along the western boundary to reduce visual impact. Additional information received shows ground levels and building to be dug in to further reduce visual impact.

The principle of the use of this site as a cattery has been established and the owner seeks to increase business due to success/demand. In considering concern relating to non-compliance with planning conditions and lack of screening on the site, planting is required to comply with the previous consent and can be reinforced by condition on this current application. With regard to the Highway Engineer's recommendations, it would seem reasonable to reinforce conditions outlined on previous consents relating to visibility and sight lines and parking, loading and unloading.

It is noted that there is a caravan on site which has been the subject of previous investigations. For clarity, it is considered necessary to further monitor and investigate the planning status of the caravan and this can be dealt with separately to this application.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I consider the cattery building, although of considerable size, to be acceptable and recommend accordingly subject to conditions. In addition, I suggest file is passed to Enforcement Section to ensure compliance with conditions on original consent and to clarify planning status of caravan.

No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs, etc, exceeding 300 mm in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Within the first planting season following the commencement of development, trees and shrubs shall be planted along the western, southern and northern boundaries of the site, all in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Any trees or shrubs which die in the first five years of planting shall be replaced with trees and shrubs of similar species and size to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The hedgerows shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy D1 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That Enforcement Section investigate planning status of caravan and ensure compliance with planning conditions.

14.	TCP/16327/G P/01626/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 13/09/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 4 storey block of 8 flats with parking area land between 44 and 46, West Hill Road, Ryde, PO33

Highway Engineer recommends standard conditions relating to turning space should consent be granted.

Sixteen letters have been received raising objection to proposed development on the following grounds:

Development out of scale and out of character with area which is designated Conservation Area.

Development will be particularly visible, given pronounced slope of land in Westhill Road.

Application relates to substantial three/four storey Victorian property situated on eastern side of Westhill Road.

Application now under consideration seeks to construct four storey block of eight flats on majority of space lying between application property and neighbouring building (No. 46). Area is designated Conservation Area approved in December 1988 which comprises in main large detached late Victorian or Edwardian properties on eastern side with more modern development on western side. There are several examples of substantial extensions to buildings on eastern side of Westhill Road.

In terms of history, application seeking extension to existing building to provide eight flats was approved in December 1988. Subsequently, following negotiations seeking to improve scale and mass of proposed extension, further application submitted and approved in November 1989.

As previously mentioned, current application seeks to infill majority of space between properties by construction of four storey block of flats. Building would have width of some 10.75 metres with maximum depth of some 13.5 metres. Each floor would comprise two 2 bedroom flats served from front doorway and entrance hall. Building would leave 3 metre gap to no. 46 and would have benefit of four side facing windows giving light to kitchen area.

In terms of design, building would sit at slightly lower level than both neighbouring properties and front elevation comprises rounded bay window feature to reflect similar elements in adjacent property.

In terms of parking, access to site would be gained alongside no. 44 over which applicant has right of way and provides eight parking space to rear on land currently comprising open grassed area. This parking area would adjoin land which, whilst indicated as parking area for no. 44, has not been formally laid out.

Main planning considerations relate to need to protect and enhance Conservation Area in which application site is located, effect on amenities of adjoining residential occupiers and previous planning decisions on this site.

Proposed building whilst not visibly attaching to no. 44 will be read as an extension to that premises and in principle there is no objection to such a proposal with main consideration relating to resultant reduction in gap between existing properties. Proposed building is set back behind building lines of adjacent property and after negotiation, gap between no. 46 has been increased to 3 metres which reflects identical distance to that approved under 1989 approval.

It is considered that mass and design is not inappropriate for area and reflects to some extent detailing in adjacent property. In terms of materials, building will be finished in buff facing bricks with rendered window surrounds and sills under blue/black fibre cement slates.

With regards to impact on adjacent residents as previously mentioned, following negotiation, gap to adjoining property has been increased to some 3 metres which reflects identical distance in respect of 1989 approval. Furthermore, south facing (side) wall of proposed building would have four kitchen window openings which is half the number shown on the scheme approved in 1989 and proposal is therefore seen as not worsening situation for adjoining residents over and above previous consent on this site.

From the comments above, Members will appreciate that current proposal is very similar to 1989 approval with some alterations to external detailing and car parking arrangements. Previous consent was granted after designation of locality as Conservation Area and there has been no material change to policy considerations surrounding this particular application except adoption of UDP which itself contains policies relating to design and Conservation Areas. The previous consent therefore would have been subject to requirement to protect or enhance Conservation Area's appearance and I do not consider therefore there is any material change that would warrant reconsideration in principle of a building of this size and in position proposed.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations described above, I consider that the scheme represents appropriate development in Conservation Area complying with Policies G1, G4, D1, H5 and B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be brought into use until the turning space is provided 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.

Details of the design and construction of the access road and car parking area shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter constructed in accordance with the agreed scheme, before any of the residential units hereby approved have been occupied.

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access to the proposed dwellings.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

15.

TCP/17048/E P/02107/01 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Norton

Registration Date: 10/12/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566

Alterations and conversion of storage building to form a dwelling (revised plans)

farm machinery storage building, adjacent Dexter Cottage, Brambles, Freshwater, PO40

Freshwater Parish Council object to application on grounds that site is outside development envelope on UDP, does not comply with Policy C17 of the Plan and would be out of keeping with the surrounding area and properties.

The Planning Policy and Environment Manager considers there to be a strong policy argument for rejecting the application.

Letter received from owner of adjacent property raising no objection to proposal or a condition being imposed requiring demolition of the former Dexter Cottage, which is in their ownership.

Application relates to single storey building, originally built as a farm machinery store, located on eastern side of Brambles Lane some 185 metres north of its junction with Colwell Road and directly opposite Brambles Farm. Building has width of approximately 16.8 metres, a depth of 8.7 metres and is constructed of concrete blocks under a concrete tile roof. Existing openings within building are limited to two windows, one in east elevation and one in south elevation, and double doors in northern elevation.

Permission is sought for alterations and conversion of building to form a dwelling.

Determining factors in considering application are whether conversion of building to form residential dwelling is acceptable in principle and whether resultant building would detract from amenities and character of locality.

Site is located outside of the built up area and the development envelope as defined on the IW Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

Alterations to building include creation of additional door and window openings in external elevations of building and construction of internal walls. In addition, submitted plans indicate that external elevations of building would either be rendered or outer skin of block work removed and replaced with brickwork to match adjoining property. Other external alterations involve provision of canopy over new front door. Existing concrete tiles to roof would be retained.

Planning permission was granted in July 1994 for the demolition of an existing bungalow adjacent the farm machinery store and construction of a new bungalow and garage. Submitted plans indicated that footprint of the proposed bungalow would overlap that of the existing structure necessitating its demolition. Planning permission was subsequently granted in June 1999, again for a replacement bungalow and garage. The planning permission was not subject to a requirement that the original dwelling on the site was demolished. Furthermore, the proposal differed from the original approval in that the footprint of the replacement bungalow did not overlap that of the original dwelling. However, submitted plans showed that the driveway and detached garage would occupy a substantial proportion of the area occupied by the existing dwelling and construction of these elements would necessitate its demolition. To date, the planning permission has been implemented in so far as it relates to the construction of the bungalow but not the garage, and the original dwelling remains intact.

Prior to submission of the current application, the applicants agent approached the Authority seeking confirmation that, in the absence of either a condition on the planning permission or a planning obligation requiring removal of the original property that it could continue to be occupied as a dwelling. Following consultations with the Council's Legal Services department, it was resolved that, although the plans submitted in respect of the proposal for a replacement dwelling showed the original to be demolished, in the absence of a condition or planning obligation in this respect, the property could continue to be occupied after the construction of the new dwelling. The applicants agent was advised accordingly in writing.

The application site is located outside the settlement of Freshwater and the development envelope as defined on the IW Unitary Development Plan. Therefore, site is in an area considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals of the Plan will be resisted. I consider that Policies C17 and H9 are of particular relevance to the current proposal. In accordance with Policy C17, which is relevant to proposals for reuse and conversion of rural buildings, the preference would be for a reuse of the building for employment, recreational or tourism purposes, subject to the proposal complying with the criteria set out in the policy. Similarly, proposals for reuse or adaption of rural buildings for residential purposes will be expected to comply with the requirements of the policy. In particular, it is necessary to demonstrate that all reasonable attempts have been made to secure a suitable employment, recreational or tourism use for the building or that the residential conversion is a subordinate part of a scheme for employment, recreational or tourism use and the building should be of historic and architectural merit. In the case of the current submission, no information has been submitted to show any attempt to secure a suitable alternative use for the building, and, having regard to its age and construction, the building in question is clearly of no historic or architectural merit. Therefore, I consider that proposal clearly conflicts with this policy.

Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan provides circumstances where residential development outside the development boundary of defined settlements may exceptionally be approved. Proposals likely to be considered acceptable would include a replacement dwelling of similar scale and mass to an existing property or proposals for the conversion of a rural building, provided no other alternative use is feasible. The bungalow constructed on the adjacent site pursuant to the planning permission granted in June 1999 was stated by the applicants to be a replacement for the original dwelling within that site and in these circumstances complied with this policy.

In the current submission, the applicants agent advises that the building, the subject of the application, is surplus to the requirements of the adjacent farm and has indicated that his client would accept the imposition of a planning condition on any permission granted or would be willing to enter into a planning obligation requiring the demolition of the original dwelling within the adjacent site. In this respect, he suggests that the proposed dwelling is of a similar scale and mass to that which it is to replace and that the proposal is in accordance with Policy H9. He considers that the net result of this application would not lead to an increase in the number of dwellings in this area and states that the application is not made under Policy C17 and if the application is refused under the terms of this policy, the applicant would have no alternative but to submit an application for a replacement for the original Dexter Cottage, retaining the machinery store, resulting in an increase in the visual impact of buildings in this area.

Whilst noting the comments made by the applicants agent regarding the policies which he considers to be relevant to the current proposal, I would draw Members attention to the explanatory text to Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan which advises that the policy should be read in conjunction with other policies of the plan, including Policy C17. Furthermore, whilst it is suggested that refusal of the current application would result in the submission of a further application for a dwelling to be constructed as a replacement for the original Dexter Cottage, I consider that refusal of such a proposal would be justified on the basis that planning permission had already been granted for a replacement dwelling within the site, even though it was not a requirement of that consent that the original dwelling was to be demolished.

The new bungalow on the adjacent plot has been constructed in front of the original dwelling with a distance of approximately 1.8 metres between the buildings. Furthermore, both properties have windows facing into the gap between the buildings. I consider that this arrangement of dwellings is extremely poor and not one which the Authority would normally encourage. In addition such an arrangement of dwellings is clearly prejudicial to amenities of both properties and gives rise to living standards which occupants thereof may find totally unacceptable. Having regard to these factors, I consider that the owners/occupiers of the new dwelling may find it both undesirable and difficult to sell or otherwise dispose of the properties separately from one another. Whilst the current proposal may provide an opportunity to resolve this situation, an alternative would be for the developer to stand by his original statement that the 1999 approval was a replacement for Dexter Cottage, and demolish the latter, as shown on the approved plans. Notwithstanding the potential removal of Dexter Cottage, for reasons detailed above, I do not consider that the conversion of the machinery store accords with the Council's policies relating to the reuse of rural buildings or that the proposal should be treated as a replacement dwelling.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the proposal conflicts with policies of the IW Unitary Development Plan regarding reuse of rural buildings and residential development in the countryside. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the offer to demolish the original dwelling on the adjacent plot is sufficient to outweigh the policy objections in this instance.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority and having regard to the age and materials used in the construction of the building, it is not considered to be of any architectural and/or historic importance which would justify it's retention and refurbishment for the use proposed and, in consequence, the proposal is contrary to Policy C17 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

16.

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

Brig O Lea, Lower Road, Adgestone, Sandown, Isle Of Wight, PO360HL

This application was deferred at the meeting on 18 December 2001 for further negotiations to reduce the size and improve the design of the extension. Revised plans have now been submitted for consideration.

Town Council object to original 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.

Ten 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.

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 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 pitched 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 500mm. The part of the extension close to the frontage would measure approximately 4 metres in width by 4 metres in depth and the rear part would extend approximately 4 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 was concerned that the scale and design of the originally 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. As a result of Members' concerns and deferral for further negotiations, revised plans have now been submitted showing the front element reduced in size and provided with a hipped roof.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details showing the reduced size and simplified design of the extension would now be acceptable and would reflect characteristics of the existing pair of semi-detached houses and I therefore consider the submitted details would comply with the requirements of Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, H7 or C2.

Construction of the extension 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.

17.	TCP/22083/C P/01316/01 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Binstead Registration Date: 25/07/2001 - Outline Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Demolition of dwelling; outline for 4 dwellings Wainlode, Kite Hill, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334LE

Highway Engineer suggests conditions be imposed on any consent. He notes the existing property has two vehicular accesses, the main one from Kite Hill and the secondary one off Barge Lane. Although visibility from Barge Lane looking right is not good, he considers one new house to replace the existing access and parking may be difficult to argue against in traffic generation terms. Whilst there appears to be insufficient turning space for a vehicle to be able to access into Barge Lane in forward gear and despite substandard visibility, low traffic flows and speeds make it unreasonable to assist upon improved turning area. Visibility is much better for the three plots off Kite Hill and parking/turning arrangements appear satisfactory.

One letter has been received objecting to proposal on grounds of overdevelopment of site in area which has seen much change in last twenty years. Additionally, there has been enormous in traffic using Kite Hill to which proposal will add. Three of the proposed units would share same access onto Kite Hill which from experience can be very difficult at times.

One letter has been received raising no objection in principle subject to following reservations:

Concern is raised over possible size of proposed dwellings, as large properties would impact both on locality, amenities of surrounding residents and have implications for car generation. Such increase in traffic generation would have implications for highway safety when accessing onto busy main road. Furthermore, any building of large properties may be too imposing and result in loss of privacy.

Application relates to detached property and its curtilage which lies immediately north of junction of Barge Lane with Kite Hill. Site has access both onto Kite Hill and Barge Lane and has significant slope both to north and west.

Application seeks consent for demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of site in form of four detached units.

Three of the dwellings are shown to be served off the existing access point onto Kite Hill with fourth dwelling served off Barge Lane.

Application was accompanied by soil investigation and following consultation with Building Inspector it was considered that any development of the site be supported by more detailed desk top study and walk over survey. Additional information has now been submitted and I am advised by the Building Inspector that he is satisfied that sufficient investigation has been carried out for outline purposes but further details will be required to accompany any subsequent application.

Given site's location within development envelope, there is no objection in principle to residential development of the site subject to more detailed matters primarily relating to appropriateness of

development in terms of impact on locality, adjoining residents, highway matters and ground conditions.

In terms of density, curtilages of dwellings are considered reasonable and development complies with requirements of PPG3 'Housing' in seeking to maximise use of urban sites.

Whilst plans are illustrative, scheme does indicate that site will be developed by cut and fill technique with that dwelling proposed for highest part of land incorporating split level accommodation. Whilst detailed matters will be agreed at later stage, plan indicates that site is capable of accommodating four dwellings and with appropriate design and siting will minimise impact on adjoining residents. However, some care would need to be taken in respect of plot 3 which is centrally sited to avoid any direct overlooking of private amenity space.

Highway Engineer has commented in respect of highway implications and therefore it is not considered reasonable to raise objection on these grounds.

Finally with regards to ground conditions additional survey information has been provided and Building Inspector is satisfied that sufficient investigation has been carried out in respect of outline submission. A condition can cover submission of further details relating to foundation design.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, development of site in form of four dwellings is considered acceptable as proposal is not seen as having detrimental impact on character of area or amenities of neighbouring residential properties. Furthermore, in view of Highway Engineer's comments no reasonable objection can be raised in respect of highway safety or traffic generation grounds. I do not consider proposal conflicts with policies contained within Unitary Development Plan and recommend accordingly.

Prior to the commencement of any works pursuant to this approval, a competent person's assessment of the ground conditions of this site along 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 developed for residential purposes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, no part of any boundary wall or fence erected on the site frontage, nor any hedge planted to mark the boundary or alongside any such boundary, wall or fence, shall at any time be permitted to be more than one metre above the level of the carriageway and the resultant visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The existing access in Barge Lane shall be stopped up and abandoned and any footway/verge crossings shall be reinstated on completion of the new access.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of two parking spaces including garages per 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.

18.

TCP/22401/C P/01925/01 Parish/Name: Sandown Ward: Sandown North

Registration Date: 06/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567

Pair of semi-detached houses; formation of vehicular access and parking area (revised scheme) (re-advertised application)

site of former Beverley Hall, Grove Road, Sandown, PO369BQ

Two letters of objection from adjoining property owners on grounds of inaccuracy of the plans, dropping of air bricks inside the property adjoining, possible flooding and inadequate drainage via soakaways.

Site is located on the north west side of Grove Road almost opposite its junction with Winchester Park Road. The site has a width of 15 metres and a depth of about 32 metres. The site has been cleared; it used to be the site of a guide hut, a single storey, corrugated sheet clad timber framed building located centrally in the site. The site does fall steeply from the road. To the north east is a traditional single dwelling of two storeys in height, whilst to the south west is a single dwelling of more modern construction and design.

In December 2000 outline planning permission was granted for a single dwelling. In October 2001 a full application seeking consent for a pair of semi-detached houses with parking was refused on grounds of excessive scale, mass and design, being inappropriate and out of scale with the character of neighbouring dwellings and the area.

This application has been submitted by way of a resubmission and has subsequently been further revised, still seeking consent for a pair of semi-detached houses. Plans show a split level house having two storeys of accommodation at the front and three storeys at the rear comprising kitchen/dining room, study, utility and living room with four bedrooms, two bathrooms and storage areas on upper floors. The building is proposed to be constructed in red bricks under grey concrete tiled roof. The further revised plans show the second floor accommodation within the roof space and including dormer windows in the rear plane.

Determination of this application turns on matters of policy and principle, access and parking, scale, mass and design and effect on adjoining properties.

The area is one of predominantly residential use and consent has been granted for a single dwelling on the site. There is no principle objection to the erection of two dwellings on site providing the development scheme works.

Access to each of the dwellings can be formed following the infill of the land in front of the building; the scheme would allow for a single car parking space for each dwelling.

Previous application was refused on grounds of inappropriate scale, mass and design which is thought to be intrusive and have an adverse effect on the visual amenities of both the neighbouring dwellings and the locality. This scheme, in my opinion, now overcomes the objections previously levelled at the former schemes. The pair of dwellings, whilst giving the appearance of a single unit, is now one of comparable size. It projects well beyond the rear face of both properties it adjoins and although windows located in those side elevations would be obscured, the mass of the three storey structure would be dominant due to the mass which projects at the rear.

The development has been sufficiently reduced so as not to affect the adjoining properties adversely. I consider the development is now acceptable and recommend accordingly.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above, the proposed dwellings, constructed in traditional materials, would be acceptable in terms of scale and mass, and would therefore be consistent with Polices D1 and D2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development shall not be brought into use until a minimum of 2 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 purposes.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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.

The windows in the north east and south west elevation shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

19.	TCP/22661/F P/01818/01 Parish/Name: Bembridge Ward: Bembridge South Registration Date: 13/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Miss. J. Garvey Tel: (01983) 823571 Retention of freestanding climbing/abseiling tower Kingswood Centre, Hillway Road, Bembridge, PO355PH

The development does not comply with Policies C11 and C2 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development is visually unsightly and inappropriate considering the designations within the area.

"The site of the above application is within Landscape Character Zone 3 (Landscape Improvement Zone) of the AONB. The AONB Management Plan states `That the aims of this zone is to prevent the expansion of urban influence, to retain and interpret Sites of Ecological Interest and to seek landscape improvements by focusing resources into this Landscape Character Zone.'

The tower is highly visible from the road, especially the entrance to Kingswood Centre. This visibility is due both to the height of the structure and the fact that the adjacent mature trees are at present without leaf. It is likely that the visibility will be lessened during the Spring and Summer months.

Climbing and abseiling activities are generally offered by businesses running at the Kingswood Centre and I believe that there are also a number of environmental subjects included on their syllabus which include tour trips into the AONB. I believe that this should be encouraged as a positive use of the former Bembridge School site. That said, I do think the tower in its present position is urbanising and shows that there has been no consideration of the effects of the structure on the local area. I would suggest that the tower is resited closer to the buildings and preferably out of site of the road and public footpaths."

This retrospective application seeks consent for a freestanding climbing/abseiling tower.

Abseiling tower is located on the north of the school campus east of the main cluster of school buildings approximately 30 metres south of the boundary with Hillway Road. School campus is

located on south eastern side of Hillway Road with grounds extending southwards to coastal slopes and the coastal footpath.

Abseiling tower is freestanding, counter-balanced and constructed of galvanised tubing with boarding to two sides serving abseiling wall and climbing wall (east and west elevations), the north and south elevations being open. Dimensions are 4.2 metres by 3.0 metres by 7.3 metres to the top of the galvanised tubing.

Hillway Road is in a rural location outside the development envelope for Bembridge. The IW Unitary Development Plan identifies the site to be within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGG).

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the development will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area designated as an AONB.

Relevant policies are therefore considered to be C1, C2 and G5. 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 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. 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 involve the low key improvement of an area used for informal leisure and recreation. In all cases, development will be expected to maintain, protect and enhance the special quality of the landscape, meet high standards of design and reflect local character and distinctiveness.

G5 refers to development outside defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires rural location, is to the benefit of the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale and relates to recreation and sports activities appropriate to the countryside. Development would not be acceptable if it reduced the quality of the environment and landscape. Trees and close boarded fencing to an approximate height of 1.8 metres run along the northern boundary of the site with Hillway Road. Whilst it is appreciated that some screening does exist, the height and stark appearance of the development can be clearly seen from Hillway Road.

Due to the retrospective nature of this application, the effects on the AONB and character of the area in general are evident. I am of the opinion that this application is contrary to Policies C1, C2 and G5 of the IW Unitary Development Plan due to the siting, size and prominent location that this development occupies, resulting in a detrimental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations raised in the report, I am of the opinion that the retention of the freestanding climbing/abseiling tower is over-dominant and to the detriment of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, due to the size and positioning. I have no alternative but to recommend the application for refusal and that enforcement action be taken for its removal as I do not consider the application to be in compliance with the requirements of IW Unitary Development Policies C1, C2 and G5.

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 will be detrimental by reason of its size, design and location and would be considered detrimental to the amenities and appearance of the area contrary to Policy C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That enforcement action be taken to ensure the freestanding abseiling/climbing tower is removed and all materials removed from the site with a three month period for compliance.

20.	TCP/22930/C P/00855/01 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West Registration Date: 12/07/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566 Dwelling site of 21, Steephill Court Road, Ventnor, PO38

Coastal Manager advises that there used to be a property located on this site which had to be demolished some fifteen years ago. He also advises that the site is located immediately adjacent an area of very active ground movement at the junction of Castle Close and Steephill Court and a number of the properties in the area have suffered serious structural damage. He believes that the site is close to the reservoir site that supplied water to the Royal National Hospital and which was filled in and may have accounted for some of the subsequent problems. I am advised that there have been further significant ground movements in this area during the 2000/01 winter. Therefore, the Coastal Manager recommends that only lightweight portakabin type structure should be approved at this location. No drainage arrangements are specified in the application which was considered to be a critical aspect of proposal and further information was requested in this respect.

In a subsequent memorandum the Coastal Manager reiterated his earlier comments and expressed the view that it would be possible to undertake development of this kind subject to ensuring that all surface water and foul sewer is connected through flexible pipes which can accommodate ground movement to the main sewer. He acknowledged that there are risks attached to development of this site and suggested that it is only because of the lightweight and temporary nature of the building that development is possible.

Principal Building Control Surveyor advises that whilst the applicant's engineer has correctly identified that the site of the proposed dwelling has been affected by serious ground movement, the damage to the previous property was not confined solely to the front elevation as suggested and that an additional line of ground movement to that identified by the engineer exists across the site. Therefore, he disagrees with the engineer's view that in siting the proposed dwelling to the rear of the site, the risk of serious structural damage occurring is small. He considers that damage to any building constructed on this site is inevitable and advises that the amount of anticipated ground movement should be quantified and the building designed in such a way that this movement can be absorbed without affecting its stability. Therefore, the building should be designed to be readily and easily re-levelled. It is for this reason that he considered a park type structure to be appropriate and was initially not convinced that the proposed structure would satisfy this criterion. He also indicated that the extent of excavations into the slope at the rear of the site was not clear from the drawings and advised that in the absence of further more detailed investigations, this should be avoided completely. In addition, he sought further details on how service connections into the building, especially drainage, will accommodate the anticipate movement.

Following receipt of further information from engineer retained by the applicants, Principal Building Control Surveyor agreed with view expressed by him that detailed design of the structure was a matter for Building Control. However, he advised that because of the requirement for ground stability to be considered at the planning stage, it is essential that the principles of construction are dealt with at this stage and that occasionally it is necessary to require further details in order to prove that such principles are practical. He advised that as the site lies in an area where considerable ground movement occurs on a regular basis, the following issues should be considered prior to issuing a planning decision:

Due to the length of the structure, it is considered that movement joints should be provided through the structure.

A section through required indicating base, columns, floor and ground level in order that the practicality of re-levelling the structure can be considered and the effect on the finished height of the structure assessed.

Details required indicating the practicability of ensuring sufficient flexibility in the drainage system.

In order to reduce the risk of external fire spread, the use of red cedar cladding is likely to be precluded.

Applicant's engineers provided additional information in response to this memorandum and further comments were received from the Principal Building Control Surveyor. He was satisfied with the response provided and that movement in the building can be accommodated. In particular, he is satisfied that the proposed building will not adversely affect the stability of the area and that the proposed design is such that the risk of serious structural damage to the property can be mitigated. Consequently, he considers that the requirement of PPG14: Development on Unstable Land has been satisfied. However, he advised that it is important that if any amendments to the building are proposed, such as the provision of a masonry outer leaf, the effect on ground movements are considered.

Whilst welcoming development of site, property should not be a more permanent eyesore than the presently overgrown appearance.

The proposed building would be out of keeping looking like glass and metal box more suited to a caravan home site than a residential street amongst properties of traditional construction and materials. Decision should not be made without a pictorial representation of the property alongside the more traditional neighbouring properties and the professional opinion and advice of the Architects Panel. These should be made available to the decision making body.

Submission refers to holiday home. If this were to be a temporary structure hired out for series of short-term lets, this is not considered suitable for area which is mainly occupied by retired people living in brick/stone traditional dwellings.

Site has poor history of instability and attention is also drawn to fault line evidence from crack in road.

Sewers would need upgrading as there was always trouble when site was occupied by permanent dwelling.

One correspondent requests that her letter is presented to the Committee and Members' instructions are sought in this respect.

Application relates to roughly rectangular area of land located on northern side of Steephill Court Road approximately 25 metres west of its junction with Castle Close and Castle Court. Site is presently vacant with exception of garage towards front of site, but was previously occupied by dwelling which was demolished after it suffered serious structural damage.

Planning permission was granted in February 1999 for a detached bungalow on the site. The proposal involved the construction of a park home type structure with addition of pitched roof. Planning permission was subsequently refused in July 1999 for a chalet bungalow for the following reason:

"In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the site is unsuitable for development with a traditional type structure such as the one proposed, because of its history of ground instability which is not covered adequately in the Site Stability Report accompanying the application. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 and Policy G7 of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan."

Current application seeks permission for dwelling providing single storey accommodation. In attempt to overcome ground stability problems, dwelling has been specifically designed for site and would be of construction which would employ light weight timber panels with western red cedar cladding to majority of side and rear elevations, large glazed panels to front elevation and a terned steel roof. The building will be supported on isolated columns on pad foundations.

Determining factors in considering application are whether development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, whether design of building is considered to be appropriate or would detract from the amenities of the area in general and those of neighbouring residential occupiers and whether development is acceptable in terms of ground stability matters.

Site is located outside settlement of Ventnor as defined by development envelope on IW Unitary Development Plan, but is nevertheless within a built up area. Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

Site is shown on plans which accompany the Coastal Landslip Potential Assessment to be predominantly within an area likely to be subject to significant constraints on development where Local Plan development proposals should identify and take account of ground behaviour constraints. For Development Control consideration, a desk top study and walkover survey will normally need to be followed by a Ground Investigation or Geotechnical appraisal prior to lodging a planning application. Plans also indicate that part of site may be affected by area which needs to be investigated and monitored to determine stability conditions where development should be avoided unless adequate evidence of stability is presented. In this instance, it is understood that site sits on a line of known movement which is particularly evident from a crack running across road in front of site.

Whilst site is outside the settlement of Ventnor and the development envelope as defined on the IW Unitary Development Plan, I consider that proposal represents infilling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage or group of houses. Therefore, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and accords with Policy H9 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed building is of a modern innovative design and it is accepted that it is not of a similar style to the dwellings immediately adjacent site which are of more traditional design and method of construction. However, within the immediate locality, including Castle Court, there are a number of dwellings of a design and appearance which differ from the general theme and incorporate features such as flat roofs. Therefore, I consider that whilst it is necessary to take account of the character of the surrounding area, it is important where the design differs from the surrounding area to consider whether it is of an appropriate quality or would detract from the character and amenities of the locality. In this respect, Members are advised that the proposal has been considered by the Architects Panel, who felt that the proposal as shown was perfectly acceptable and that the design appeared exciting and well defined. In particular, the Panel were of the opinion that this type of design was to be commended.

Site is within area characterised by mix of dwelling types including bungalows and chalet bungalows. Properties either side of site are chalet bungalows with dwelling to west situated on ground slightly higher than application site. Having regard to the style and character of buildings in the locality and whilst the design of the proposed building differs with the general theme of development, I am satisfied that it is of an appropriate size, scale and mass. Therefore, I do not consider that it would represent an interesting, rather than incongruous feature in the street scene. Proposal is described as holiday home in submitted application form and on accompanying plans and it has attracted comments from local residents regarding suitability of such a use. Whilst proposal is described as holiday home, I am satisfied that dwelling would equally be suitable for permanent occupation and such use would not conflict with policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

In accordance with the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14 - Development on Unstable Land, development on land which is known or suspected to be unstable or potentially unstable will need to take account of the potential hazard that such instability could create both to the development itself and to the neighbouring area. It is the responsibility of the developer to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that any instability has been taken into account and the Authority cannot be held liable in the event that movement occurs and the property sustains any damage or development causes instability to adjacent sites. Various discussions have taken place between Council officers and the applicant's engineer regarding ground stability and correspondence received from the engineer addressing issues raised. In particular, in one letter received by the Authority the engineer states as follows:

"I accept that there is likely to be some ground movement at the site. My conclusions were that the risk of damage to the building would be small provided that the siting and structure were appropriate to the site. My client is aware of the risks and accepts that the site is unsuitable for a traditional dwelling and that any building erected on the site will not be mortgageable."

He advises that the primary structure will be a substantial timber frame with columns founded on isolated concrete pads. The infill between the main structure framework will be non-load bearing and the supporting columns can be realigned by jacking if differential movement of the foundation pads occurs. Furthermore, he indicates that where large glazed panels are installed, these will be provided with generous clearances and soft joints around to minimise the risk of damage caused by distortion of the main framework. In this instance, the structure proposed differs from the timber framed dwellings commonly constructed today where external timber panels are load bearing and supported on continuous foundations. These are typically faced with brickwork which is brittle and liable to serious damage if movement occurs. In a

subsequent letter and in response to queries raised by the Principal Building Control Surveyor, the applicant's engineer confirmed the following details:

A movement joint will be incorporated into the structure of the building near the centre of the long axis. This will extend through the roof.

The practicality of re-levelling the structure will be taken into account. In practice, this will probably have little impact on the structure. The ventilation space under the suspended ground floor will be adequate to insert a simple jack, such as a vehicle trolley jack. The floor level of the building will not be high enough to allow man access underneath. Access hatches will be incorporated into the floor adjacent to all internal structural columns.

The existing drains are still in position and may be suitable for use for the new building. Their present condition is not known, but it is suggested that they are inspected using CCTV, tested for water tightness and repaired as necessary. In addition, he confirms that all service connections to the building should take account of ground movement. In the case of drains, it is appropriate to provide a series of short pipes with flexible joints laid in 10mm stone close to the building.

On the issue of the external cladding and the question of surface spread of flame, he advises that this is not within his field of expertise and is a point which will be addressed by the architect. In this respect, the applicant's agent/architect has advised that the western red cedar intended to be used in the construction of the building has a Class 3 surface spread of flame as set out in the Building Standards Approved Document B, table A8 and this can if required, be upgraded to Class 1 by application of a flame retarded coating. Principal Building Control Surveyor has indicated that he would be willing to deal with the final approval of the material to be used when considering an application for Building Regulations approval. Furthermore, in terms of the ground stability issues, he considers that the requirements of PPG14 have been satisfied.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of site with residential unit as proposed is acceptable in principle and that the size, scale and design of the unit proposed is acceptable and will not detract from the character of the area or amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers. Furthermore, I am satisfied that information submitted in respect of ground stability satisfies requirements of PPG14 and in particular that development will not adversely affect the stability of the area.

No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and the external cladding to the building shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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, D, E and F 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.

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 alteration to the roof of the dwelling hereby approved (including the addition of windows) permitted by Part 1, Classes B and C of the 1995 Order, shall be constructed 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.

The porthole windows in the east elevation shall be permanently fixed (non-opening) and shall be finished in permanent obscure glazing all of which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Any surface water from the development, including any overflow from the water collector as shown on the approved plan shall not be disposed of through soakaways, but shall be disposed of to the main drain system. Details of all service connections, including connections to the drainage system, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Thereafter work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise risk of ground movement in the general locality and to comply with Policy G7 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The car parking/garage shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be retained hereafter for the use by occupiers and visitors to the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a fence of a height to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, shall be erected and thereafter maintained along the western boundary of the site between the rear boundary and a point level with the forwardmost part of the decking in front of the building.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

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 freestanding buildings, structures, walls or fences of any kind 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 Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

2. Recommendation - That a letter be sent to applicant strongly advising that all excavation and foundation works are inspected very carefully and such inspection shall be carried out by an appropriate competent qualified engineer (preferably the engineer who carried out the submitted Geotechnical Report) in order to ensure full compliance takes place with regard to the submitted Ground Stability Appraisal Report which forms part of this consent.

21	TCP/22966/B P/01927/01 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Fairlee Registration Date: 01/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. A. White Tel: (01983) 823550 2 single storey extensions to enlarge 2 light industrial units Palmers Brook Farm, Park Road, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334NS

Members will be familiar with Palmers Brook Farm which is situated at the bottom of Lushington Hill on corner of junction with Park Road. Site has more recently been used for light industrial purposes, storage area and as a nursery.

Site has a complex planning history. Relevant applications are change of use of buildings for light industrial purposes which was approved in July 1989. Outline for nine industrial units was approved in October 1992 but this was not followed by an approval for reserved matters.

The light industrial aspect of this site is mainly confined to two buildings. Extension A is shown to have a floor area of 18.2 metres by 10.2 metres and is attached to a long rectangular building adjacent the western boundary of industrial complex. Submitted floor plans for extension A confirm that an existing unit will be extended and that a new unit will be provided. The new unit measures approximately 10 metres by 9 metres. Extension B is shown to have a floor area of 9 metres by 12.2 metres and is attached to an existing industrial building adjacent the eastern boundary of complex. This extension is to comprise of two additional units, each measuring 12 metres by 4.5 metres. Both extensions are shown to be constructed of UPV steel coated cladding.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and whether the proposed industrial development is acceptable in this area.

Site is shown to be outside of any development envelope as identified on the IW Unitary Development Plan. Relevant UDP policies are therefore considered to be S4 (Countryside Protected from Inappropriate Development), G5 (Development Outside Defined Settlements), D2 (Standards for Development), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), P1 (Pollution and Development), TR7 (Highway Considerations in New Development) and E8 (Employment in the Countryside). E8 states that applications for employment related development on land outside the development envelope boundaries will be approved where the proposal is of benefit to the rural economy, is of a scale and design appropriate for the location and meets at least one of the following criteria:

The development allows for the expansion of firms which could not be expected to relocate;

The application is for the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other appropriate rural building;

Where the development is associated with an existing farm complex or other employment operation and is compatible with, and complimentary to, that use.

This application contains two elements. The first is to extend an existing building in matching materials and design to provide additional floor space for the current occupier. This element is considered to comply with the policies set out above and, on its own, would be acceptable. However, the second element of this application involves new build additional industrial units not specifically proposed for the expansion of existing firms, not involving the reuse of a suitable agricultural or other rural building and not associated with an existing farm complex. No evidence has been submitted by the applicant to show that any of these critical criteria of Policy E8 have been met, in so far as the new units are concerned.

Although the extension may be considered acceptable in policy terms, it is not possible to issue a split decision and therefore I have no alternative but to recommend refusal of the whole application.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, whilst recognising that the expansion of industrial units is acceptable and in accordance with policy, I am of the view that there is insufficient justification to grant planning permission for additional units in this rural location. Proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E8 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

22	TCP/23947/A P/02004/01 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde St Johns West Registration Date: 26/11/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. P. Stack Tel: (01983) 823570 Construction of a surface water attenuation pond south of Brook Close and north west of, Nicholson Road, Ryde, PO33

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

Environment Agency were consulted and raise no objection in principle subject to appropriate condition being attached to any planning consent requiring detailed calculations in respect of run-off rates together with details relating to future maintenance programme and requirement for suitable planting both in and around pond.

Application relates to vacant area of land situated at north western corner of industrial estate which is served by Nicholson Road off Great Preston Road. Main service road has been laid through site and serves fire station, several industrial units, together with distribution centres and Royal Mail sorting office.

Application seeks to construct surface water storage pond which will serve both existing approved development and future undeveloped plots.

Pond would be situated immediately north of existing service road and be totally enclosed with 2 metre high chain link fence with concrete posts.

In support of application, agent states that storage pond has capacity to accommodate 1:100 year critical storm duration and whilst total site area equates to some 2.6 hectares, peak outflow rate has been limited to less than 19 litres per second. Earth retaining bank has been given 300mm freeboard to allow for slight settlement and as factor of safety. A nominated party by site owner will undertake routine maintenance of pond, banks and by-pass interceptors and central area of pond will be planted with aquatic plants. Application is supported by slope stability report and storage pond calculations along with detailed design drawings which show run-off rates at 7 litres per second per hectare.

There is no objection in principle to provision of attenuation pond which provides controlled run-off from this industrial estate into Monktonmead Brook. As Environment Agency has raised no objection in principle, development is considered acceptable. Suggested condition requiring details in respect of future maintenance.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the proposed development will ensure appropriate run-off rates into Monktonmead Brook from industrial estate as it is developed meeting requirements of Policy U11 of IW Unitary Development Plan and recommend accordingly.

No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system is designed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and supported by detailed calculations. Such a drainage system for the site must be capable of delivering the estimated 1% probability storm run-off to storage. The system must be capable of storing the run-off from the 1% event restricting the outflow to that which would have occurred had the site been a green field. The agreed scheme shall include a maintenance programme and establish ownership of the storage system for the future and be implemented and retained permanently thereafter.

Reason: To prevent flooding and ensure future maintenance.

23	TCP/24134/A P/01769/01 Parish/Name: Shanklin Ward: Shanklin South Registration Date: 25/10/2001 - Full Planning Permission Officer: Mr. J. Mackenzie Tel: (01983) 823567 Alterations & conversion of workshop/garages to form 4 dwellings workshop/garages off, Brook Road, Shanklin, PO37

This application was the subject of a Committee site inspection which took place on 18 December 2001 when it was resolved to defer determination to enable the applicant to explore the possibility of acquiring additional land to provide on site parking provision, but also perhaps to provide an additional building and accommodation. The agent has responded by confirming that all of the adjoining property owners concerned have declined to participate in this development, but he has produced a plan showing the provision of four car parking spaces, two in the courtyard and two immediately adjoining unit 4.

Shanklin Town Council object on grounds of over-intensive use of the site and inadequate access.

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.

"No development shall take place until an adequate investigation to assess the degree of contamination on site has been carried out. The methods and extent of the investigation shall be agreed with the Contaminated Land Officer before any works commence. Development shall not be commenced until a scheme to deal with any contamination on the site has been submitted and approved in writing by the Contaminated Land Officer. All measures approved in any decontamination scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Contaminated Land Officer before use commences.

Reason: In the interests of public health and amenity of future users/occupiers of the development."

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.

The latest plan submitted showing a possible parking arrangement means that all of the amenity areas for each of the units will be lost to access and parking. The courtyard area is also limited and manoeuvring on site will be a difficult operation as no further land is available to provide potential parking provision. The proposals are maintained in their submitted form except for the courtyard parking as shown in the additional plan.

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.

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.

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.

No development shall take place until an adequate investigation to assess the degree of contamination on the site has been carried out. the methods and extent of the investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before any works commence. Development shall not commence until a scheme to deal with any contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All measures approved in the contamination scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the use commences.

Reason: In the interests of public health and amenity of future users or occupiers of the development.

TCP/24294/A P/00008/02 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke West

Registration Date: 09/01/2002 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. D. Booth Tel: (01983) 823577

Alterations, single & 2 storey extension to enlarge accommodation, including new dormer window; formation of vehicular access & hardstanding

6 Castle Street, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO301NS

Highway Engineer has not yet made formal comment, but has indicated informally that submitted details shown on revised plans would be acceptable.

County Archaeologist requests conditions for access and observation of groundwork if this application is approved.

Environmental Agency confirm they have no objection to the proposal, but have indicated that foul drainage from the development should be taken to the mains foul sewer and that any facilities for storage of oils, fuels or chemicals should be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by bund walls.

Letter received from local resident objecting to application for vehicular access and hardstanding, as this would be detrimental to the character and uniqueness of Castle Street. The impact on the area would not be favourable and to remove some of the garden wall of this unique property would spoil the area forever. There is a more than adequate car park in the village that can be used.

This application relates to a detached dwelling situated on the western side of Castle Street approximately 40 metres to the south of the junction with Carisbrooke High Street. The existing dwelling is a small chalet style property under a steeply pitched roof and is situated on rising ground with well landscaped gardens.

Members may recall that an application relating to extension and provision of vehicular hardstanding at this property was considered by the Committee at their meeting on 27 November 2001 when the application was refused as the proposal to remove the boundary wall and form a lay-by with retaining walls was considered out of character with the locality and would not therefore serve to protect or enhance the character and amenities of the designated Conservation Area, contrary to the requirements of Policy B6 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

This application has now been submitted with revised details in an attempt to overcome the concerns regarding the previous proposals in respect of the vehicular access and hardstanding.

Firstly, alterations and extension to the existing dwelling including construction of a two storey gabled extension to the rear to provide an additional kitchen and bedroom accommodation, together with a small lean-to extension on the northern side replacing an existing structure and the provision of two south facing dormer windows at first floor level to light the first floor accommodation. The submitted details also indicate removal of the render to the front of the property to expose existing brickwork and other alterations to the fenestration of the property.

Although the above works would make a substantial change to the character of the existing building, I do not consider that it would have an significant adverse effect on the overall character or appearance of the area or the amenities of nearby residents. This element of the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle, although the use of materials and finishes would be an important issue within the designated Conservation Area.

The second issue relates to removal of part of the front boundary wall and excavation of the garden area to form a vehicular hardstanding within the garden area. As a result of previous concerns and refusal of the former application, further negotiations have now taken place with the Highway Engineer and the Conservation Officer resulting in submission of the revised plans now under consideration.

The submitted details now indicate retention of a significant section of the existing boundary walling adjacent to the highway with the formation of a combined vehicle and pedestrian access measuring approximately 5 metres in length. The vehicle hardstanding would be partially located behind the boundary wall, thereby retaining as much as possible of the frontage and sense of enclosure to this part of the lane which was considered an important factor when determining the previous application.

As the garden of the property rises above the road level, the formation of the hardstanding will still require a significant degree of excavation and the proposal also includes a new brick and flint retaining wall within the garden and adjacent to the northern boundary. The remainder of the garden would be retained as a landscaped area. Following discussions with the Highway Engineer, the submitted details have been revised to incorporate the vehicular and pedestrian access into one opening and although this would result in a slightly wider overall opening, it would result in a more practical arrangement whilst retaining the majority of the boundary walling which is considered an important feature in the street scene.

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I am of the opinion that the revised details now under consideration, although resulting in some opening up of the front boundary and excavation of the garden area would, on balance, be considered acceptable and would allow car parking within the site whilst retaining a significant section of the boundary walling, thereby maintaining the character and appearance of this section of the designated Conservation Area.

The proposed alterations and extension to the dwelling are considered to be acceptable in terms of scale and character and would not adversely affect the appearance of the property or the amenities of nearby residents. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in accordance with IW Unitary Development Plan Policies B6, D1, H7 and TR7. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

The applicant's agent has also submitted details in respect of stability of the site where excavation is required to form a level hardstanding and the provision of retaining walls. It is confirmed that the proposed development could be carried out without any adverse impact on the stability of the existing garden area or the adjoining property.

Construction of the alterations, extensions and retaining walls 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.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

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.

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 in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 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.

With the exception of that part shown on the approved plans, the roadside boundary wall shall be retained in conjunction with the building works hereby permitted. The remaining parts of the wall shall be retained hereafter when the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.

Reason: In order to protect the special character and appearance of the designated Conservation Area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policies B6 and D1.

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the clearance of weeds, brambles and seedlings from the land because they are considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.

During July 2001 a complaint was received alleging the following breaches of planning control.

An Enforcement Officer visited the site and noted that the property was a detached bungalow, situated in a busy residential area, the garden is partly obscured from view from the road because of the changes in level. There is no dedicated footpath on this side of the road and from the slightly elevated footpath on the other side of the road the site cannot be seen. To the north is a Southern Electricity building whilst to the south is number 89 which is bounded to the site by a 1.5 metre high close boarded panel fence. There appears to be a row of sycamore trees within the site adjacent this boundary, These trees do not appear to be overgrown at the moment. The surrounding properties have been well maintained and cared for.

Attempts have been made to contact the owner of the property so that the situation can be explained to them. To date the owner has not responded and there remains some confusion over the actual owner of the vacant property. The enforcement officer has failed to make any other form of contact with the owner.

There are no financial implications regarding the service of a Notice under Section 215 in this case.

2. To serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act requiring the removal of the weeds, brambles and seedlings and the cutting back of existing shrubs to a reasonable size.

Due to the position of the site, it is difficult to see the property from the roadside, therefore it is not considered that the overgrown nature of the property affects the visual amenity of the surrounding area. Accordingly I do not consider that a notice under section 215 of the Planning Act should be served.

Town	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
COWES MEDINA	Site former garages and parking area adjacent 160 Arctic Road, Cowes	TCP/05514/V	4	APPROVAL
EAST COWES NORTH	Former Westlands Sports Ground Old Road East Cowes	TCP/00555/G	1	APPROVAL
FAIRLEE	Five Acres Farm Stapler Road Newport	TCP/01501/T	3	APPROVAL
NEWCHURCH	Apse Manor Country Retreat Apse Manor Road Shanklin	TCPL/24392	7	REFUSAL
NEWCHURCH	Apse Manor Country Retreat Apse Manor Road Shanklin	LBC/24392/A	8	REFUSAL
RYDE SOUTH EAST	Land rear of 42 - 50 St Johns Road and 30 - 34 Riboleau Street Ryde	TCP/01374/V	2	APPROVAL
SANDOWN NORTH	95 Avenue Road Sandown	TCP/20941/A	6	APPROVAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	Land adjacent 9 - 11 Victoria Avenue fronting St Johns Road Shanklin	TCP/09632/C	5	APPROVAL

Electoral Division	Site	App. No.	Rep. No.	Recommendation
BINSTEAD	Wainlode Kite Hill Wootton Bridge	TCP/22083/C	17	APPROVAL
BEMBRIDGE SOUTH	Kingswood Centre Hillway Road Bembridge	TCP/22661/F	19	REFUSAL
BRADING AND ST HELENS	Brig O Lea Lower Road Adgestone	TCP/17246/C	16	APPROVAL
CARISBROOKE WEST	6 Castle Street Carisbrooke	TCP/24294/A	24	APPROVAL
COWES CASTLE EAST	Rear of 35 High Street Cowes	TCP/04526/C	9	APPROVAL
FAIRLEE	Palmers Brook Farm Park Road Wootton Bridge	TCP/22966/B	21	REFUSAL
FRESHWATER AFTON	4 Orchard Close Freshwater	TCP/06934/B	10	APPROVAL
FRESHWATER NORTON	Farm machinery storage building adjacent Dexter Cottage Brambles Freshwater	TCP/17048/E	15	REFUSAL
ST JOHNS WEST	Land between 44 and 46 West Hill Road Ryde	TCP/16327/G	14	APPROVAL
ST JOHNS WEST	Land south of Brook Close and north west of Nicholson Road Ryde	TCP/23947/A	22	APPROVAL
SANDOWN NORTH	Site of former Beverley Hall Grove Road Sandown	TCP/22401/C	18	APPROVAL
SANDOWN SOUTH	Land to rear and adjacent Chester Lodge Hotel 7 Beachfield Road Sandown	TCP/12592/D	12	REFUSAL
SHANKLIN SOUTH	Workshop/garages off Brook Road Shanklin	TCP/24134/A	23	APPROVAL
VENTNOR WEST	Sunrise, Newport Road Ventnor	TCP/08383/C	11	APPROVAL
VENTNOR WEST	Site of 21 Steephill Court Road Ventnor	TCP/22930/C	20	APPROVAL
WROXALL AND GODSHILL	Pund Farmhouse Shanklin Road Ventnor	TCP/13752/F	13	APPROVAL

2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of reserved matters - A03