PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE B

TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

                                                                 WARNING

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 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 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 CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES (TEL: 821000) AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

5.THE COUNCIL CANNOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ON ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

Background Papers

The various documents, letters and other correspondence referred to in the Report in respect of each 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 Head of Legal and Democratic Services, in recognition of a duty to give reasons for a decision, each report will include a section explaining and giving a justification for the recommendation.

LIST OF PART II APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2003

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

www.iwight.com/council/committees/Mod-development_control/18-03-03/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2003

LIST OF PART IV ITEMS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 18 MARCH 2003

(a)       TCP/13615F Former Rex Cinema,                                     VENTNOR

                                               Church Street

(b)       E/19669A                   Augustine Farm                                             BRADING

                                               Lower Road

(c)                                           Land adjacent Myrtle Cottage,                       NEWPORT

                                               Marks Corner

PART II

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved. The recommendation is a departure from the policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application, the processing of which has taken 54 weeks to date.

This is beyond the prescribed time limits because of:

·The need for an appropriate assessment, prepared by DEFRA and received on 1 November 2002;

·The need to consider the proposal against the conclusions of "Project Cowes" received in draft but yet to be discussed in public;

·The need to consider revised plans prepared as a result of discussions undertaken during the preparation of the "Project Cowes" report and leading to the requirement for further financial appraisal, assessment of which is currently being undertaken by the Council's Property Services Manager.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Roughly rectangular site of some 0.95 hectares on the north east side of Medina Road and the River Medina waterfront. Bounded to south east by Thetis Wharf and to north west by some residential property on the highway frontage and boat yard facilities including slip ways. Opposite the north western part of the site fronting Medina Road are two blocks of three storey flats, whilst to the south east of this is a single storey red brick commercial building.

The site itself is occupied as a boat yard and a winter storage of boats and contains in its north west part, fronting Medina Road a two storey building containing offices, chandlery, marine dealer / yacht broker, and toilets for visiting boat owners. The site is mainly occupied as open storage or working area for yachts, whilst there is a public slipway adjacent the eastern corner with access alongside the south eastern boundary of the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/1523J - Six additional single storey work shop units - approved June 1993 with conditions.

TCP/1523L - Siting of portable building for use as office accommodation for powersail charters - temporary consent granted, expiring 30 June 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Submitted in outline, with all matters except siting and access reserved for future approval.

Proposal is in two parts, development of improvements to the marina by the provision of new walkway pontoons extending from either end of the water frontage of the site 45 metres south east and 70 metres north east out into the River Medina with further pontoons, running parallel with the channel, enclosing an area 75 metres x 135 metres within which further, smaller pontoons would be located to provide mooring facilities. These elements would be constructed under permitted development rights. An area of land reclamation, some 90 metres x 13 metres maximum will extend the width of the site, particularly in its south eastern section. This will be created by the construction of a new sheet piled wall and capping beam to regularise the water front in this part of the site. The existing piers and crane in the northern corner of the site would be removed.

The existing building fronting Medina Road is to be retained, with open boat yard facilities to the north east and north west. 16 Parking spaces are proposed to serve this part of the development.

The southern part of the site is proposed to be developed for residential and commercial purposes, and illustrative plans show 51 dwellings, in 6 blocks set in a "horseshoe" layout in the south eastern part of the site with commercial, retail and leisure uses on ground floor. Illustrative cross-sections show three storey blocks closest to the water frontage, four storey immediately adjoining, rising to six storeys in the central part of the site and reducing again to five floors on the Medina Road frontage. 46 car parking spaces are proposed to serve the residential element mainly located within the arms of the "horseshoe", but some adjoining the south eastern boundary. Landscaping to be provided around the blocks and within the parking areas.

Three accesses proposed onto Medina Road, one centrally within the site between the proposed housing and the existing commercial building, one centrally into the housing area and one adjacent the south eastern boundary of the site.

The proposal originally included residential redevelopment of the "jalopy shop" on the corner of Medina Road and Bridge Road, opposite the site for 10 "social housing" flats, but this element has now been deleted from the proposal.

A design statement (copy attached to this report) has been submitted in support of the original submission, together with reports dealing with ground contamination, impact on propagation of the tide, geomorphological impact within the estuary, effects on sedimentary processes and wave heights in the vicinity of and relating to the floating break waters.

A confidential financial appraisal has been undertaken in relation to the "enabling" residential development and the overall cost of the marine works and applicants suggest a Section 106 Agreement to deliver affordable housing arrangements, alternative boat yard storage and maintenance facilities, linking "enabling" and "desirable" development and permission of mixed uses.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN / POLICY

PPG1 (General Principles), PPG3 (Housing), PPG9 (Nature Conservation), PPG13 (Transport), PPG20 (Coastal Planning) and PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) will be relevant to determination of this application, together with government circulars relating to use of conditions in planning permissions, Section 106 agreements and affordable housing.

Site adjoins Solent Maritime candidate Special Area of Conservation.

Within development envelope for Cowes as defined in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, but not allocated for any specific purpose. Underlying assumption is therefore that existing uses would remain the same.

The following policies of the UDP are thought to be relevant:

S1 - New development concentrated in existing urban areas;

S2 - Development encouraged on brown field sites;

S3 - New large scale developments expected to be located in defined development envelopes of main Island towns, including Cowes;

S5 - Proposals which on balance are for overall benefit of Island by enhancing economic, social or environmental position will be approved providing adverse impacts can be ameliorated;

S6 - All development expected to be of high standard of design;

S7 - Need to provide at least 8000 housing units over plan period;

In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation value, development permitted only if it will conserve or enhance features of special character of these areas;

G1 - Development envelopes;

G4 - General locational criteria for development;

G6 - Development in areas liable to flooding;

G10 - Potential conflict between proposed development and existing / surrounding uses;

G11 - Coastal development;

D1 - Standards of design;

D2 - Standards for development within the site;

D9 - Works of art etc.;

D11 - Crime and design;

D13 - Energy conservation;

H1 - Major residential development within main Island towns;

H2 - Large residential developments to contain variety of house sizes and types;

H4 - Unallocated residential development restricted to defined settlements;

H6 - High density residential development;

H14 - Locally affordable housing as an element of housing schemes;

E1 - Promote suitably located new employment uses;

E7 - Employment sites with deep water frontage;

C7 - River corridors and estuaries;

C9 - Sites of international importance for nature conservation;

C10 - Sites on national importance for nature conservation;

P3 - Restoration of contaminated land;

TR3 - Locating development to minimise the need to travel;

TR4 - Transport statement required fro major development;

TR7 - Highway considerations for a new development;

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines;

R2 - New retail development;

U2 - Adequate education, social and community facilities for future population;

U11 - Infrastructure and services provision;

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

These representations include reference to revised plans, readvertised in January 2003.

Highways Engineer considers parking layout is acceptable. Recommends conditions regarding closure of existing access construction of new access and parking and turning provision.

English Nature indicate appropriate assessment under habitats regulations needed.

Environment Agency originally objected but withdrew objection and recommends conditions in relation to flood risk assessment, maintenance of flood defences, warning and evacuation procedures, contamination assessment and ground water pollution prevention, foul and surface water drainage works, timing and method of piling and bunding of tank storage.

Environmental Health Officer no objection.

Contaminated Land Officer has considered submitted site investigation which, in his view does not provide sufficient information to assess the risks from contamination. He recommends therefore a planning condition requiring submission of appropriate report and the carrying out of any agreed remediation, prior to commencement of works, should the application be approved.

Southern Water no development within 3 metres of combined sewer, no surface water to public sewer although foul from dwellings acceptable. Any existing surface water to sewer should be redirected to new surface water disposal scheme for a development. Water supply can be provided.

Head of Housing Services - affordable housing provision under UDP policy H14 preferred on site although even at 50 % discount unlikely in this location to be affordable to a housing association. Second preference for 10 units on a nearby site. Commuted payment would be unacceptable - strongly recommends any such offer be refused. Medina Housing "flags up" interest in the proposal and as a potential partner in the original scheme.

Property Services Manager has considered the financial appraisal submitted and any comments will be available at the meeting.

Architects Panel commended proposal but noted high level of car parking. Look forward to receiving detailed scheme in which landscaping will be an important element.

Isle of Wight Economic Partnership refers to "Project Cowes" and considers that this, or any other application should be considered against the strategic plan currently being drawn up.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council considered the revised plans and has no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The local Member has suggested that planning gain might be achieved through this application. He suggests St. Andrews community hall is in dire need of redevelopment and is close to the site. If the application is approved, can the developers be required to contribute to the community by financing redevelopment/repair of the hall?

Island 2000 Trust is creating a "boat trail", a heritage trail linking Cowes and East Cowes focusing on the rich boating heritage of the two towns. Initial funding is available from a single regeneration project but further funding is sought. Suggest that route landscaping, heritage interpretation and quality design could begin at Shephards Wharf to take advantage of opportunities in pavement treatment, railings, seating, planting along Medina Road frontage, route to public space at Shephards Wharf with paving treatment and opportunity to divert the trail to seafront with integral "public art" feature in public square. A number of ideas are put forward as to introducing treatments relating to various parts of boats, names of boats built at Shephards Wharf, Americas Cup, etc. Suggestion is that contribution could be made to public art works as a proportion of the development costs, suggests £5000 design fee plus costs with

minimum £25000 implementation fund. Artists would need to be involved at early, tender stage and benefits to developer would be a visually exciting development giving added value to purchasers.

Cowes Inshore Lifeboat - based at Shephards Wharf for over 10 years. No objection in principle but concerned no provision within scheme for shore based facilities or mooring to continue operation emergency service. Requirements are that lifeboat must be moored no further south than present position in Shephards Wharf, access to fresh water and electricity at mooring, must be moored in West Cowes as majority of crew reside / work in West Cowes, facilities for at least 4 cars to enable quick response, HQ must have minimum floor area of 9 square metres but ideally 25 square metres to alleviate over crowding, head quarters should be no further away from mooring than at present and easier access to head quarters to avoid crew members having to run through open boat yard, sometimes in the dark, and the hazards that arise there from.

Harley Racing Yachts objects to development of residential housing on prime marine site reducing potential capacity for keel boat sailing in Cowes, restriction of abilities to build and launch boats from Samuel White's site, removal of crane will render more difficult stepping and unstepping of masts, removal of slipway will remove launching and recovery of medium sized motor craft in Cowes, marine invested sites encroached upon over last 10 years by residential development thus Cowes eventually will lose ability to be seriously considered as reputable port for servicing, maintenance and building of motor and sailing craft, would seriously consider moving business to mainland to continue trading in working harbour as opposed to residential retirement haven. This would result in loss 25 jobs and effect income of many local contractors.

British Marine Federation and Isle of Wight Marine Industries Association object as proposal contrary to UDP policy E7 which seeks to safeguard land with access to water for purposes which utilise that facility and follows principles of PPG20 (the coast). Would lead to loss of boat yard facility which contributed to local, national and international function of the Solent for recreational boating and which is of benefit for the economy of the Island and its employment and skill base.

The benefits argued in favour are not sufficient to override the harm done and approval would be precedent for boat yards elsewhere on the Island, the cumulative effect of which would be highly damaging.

Since advertisement of the revised plans, letters have been received from 8 local companies, involved in marine businesses, who make the following points:

·Proposal would affect ability to provide services to local and visiting yachtsmen and enabling development will push land values up, creating inviability in existing businesses;

·If marina is required, other means should fund it;

·Impractical to have day boats stored up River Medina, they have no engines and will prove dangerous with the number of boat movements in the area, facilities would be better provided beyond river mouth;

·Water front should not be taken up with waterside housing which will do nothing for infrastructure of Cowes;

·Boat owners will lose a local facility;

·Industrial and residential uses do not mix especially where a dense block of flats is between public slipway and shore side facilities, e.g. boat repairs/maintenance will annoy residents;

·Unsympathetic design, inappropriate to Cowes;

·Parking for 30 cars with access from Medina Road will compete with queues for the floating bridge;

·Wharf was bought for a public facility, residential development is wrong;

·Proposal contrary to UDP, coherent approach needed. Residential in the heart of a working waterfront is very poor precedent, leading to dormitory town for visitors;

·No decision should be made until "Project Cowes" has been through consultation to gauge level of consensus and suitability for adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance;

·Business which has relocated from Channel Islands relies on Shephards Wharf to launch new boats from 23 feet - 49 feet in length and to bring boats ashore for repair. Impossible to bring by road from Whippingham. Site of prime importance to marine industry in Cowes and should not be used for housing;

·No development should be permitted which would obliterate only alternative facility to Samuel White's yard for heavy yacht repair and launching facilities in Cowes.

The Brunswick Court Management Company supports phase 1 of the development and the applicants promotion and development of Cowes as a yachting centre through improved hard standing for dinghies and deep water moorings for larger craft. Acknowledge that phase 1 is not dependant of phase 2 and issue hinges on justification for phase 2. This part of application should be refused because the land is not approved for housing development, the plan does not appear to make much impact on generation of local employment, blocks of flats degrade visual amenity of area because of their height, inadequate car parking provision and increased traffic in an already congested area. However pleased to see a plan which regenerates an area much of which appears derelict. Whilst application closer to Councils planning criteria would be preferred, would accept development of maximum three storeys for the taller blocks along Medina frontage.

One resident of Cowes, one resident of Fishbourne and one resident of Shanklin objected to original scheme. Since re advertisement, letters received from 5 further residents of Cowes and 2 from East Cowes

·Loss of boat yard disaster for marine industry and Islands employment prospects;

·Water frontage work areas already nearly at nil;

·Extreme demand for facilities at Shephards Wharf as full every year and lay up and refitting of yachts not possible;

·Tragic loss of boat yard facilities in Cowes already;

·Island residents have already to consider mainland yards for refitting;

·No advantages in the proposed scheme;

·Residential element seven storeys not six - ridiculously high - 3 or 4 storeys much more appropriate;

·Small terraced houses "engulfed" by development - no sunlight to these houses in morning;

·Marina in dangerous position at mouth of river and could lead to disaster with commercial river traffic;

·Not enough landscaping proposed in the scheme;

·More facilities for locals (clubhouse, swimming pool) could be included, not expensive houses.

·Inadequate car parking - should be at least 2 spaces per flat, plus business requirement - will lead to on street parking problems;

·Replacement boat repair/service yard elsewhere, will not reflect current site's unique location and access;

·Floor levels, reflecting flood risk zone, makes 6 storeys appear significantly higher towering over surrounding buildings and denying visual space;

·Where will displaced yachts go for all year dry dock yacht space? Danger that yachting infrastructure will move completely out of Cowes to the mainland;

·Retail element should be set aside within town centres and any type of retail on this site will jeopardise sustainability of Cowes town centre;

·Sewerage system in Cowes still has problems - adding 51 dwellings will add to the problem;

·No point in having international reputation of Cowes if space for visiting yachtsmen is seriously decreased for residential profit.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The principal issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application are relationship with "Project Cowes", policy and principle, appearance and townscape, affordable housing, ecology, flood risk, access, and other issues raised in representations.

"Project Cowes"

Although the final conclusions of the project have yet to be received and discussed in public, the initial conclusions have had some influence on the submitted proposal. For example, the identification of a need for public ground floor uses such as leisure/special retail facilities in the area to create linkage between Cowes and East Cowes has resulted in a revised scheme for a reduced number of dwellings (51, previously 61) a town centres and the introduction of leisure and retail facilities at ground floor. This has also resulted in a fresh assessment of the scheme valuations and "cross subsidy" requirements.

The applicants financial appraisal (currently being assessed by the Property Services Manager) indicates that approximately £2.38 million will be available to go towards funding for the marine related development, which is anticipated to cost some £3.42 million.

In broad terms, it would appear that the proposal, as amended, fits within emerging strategy for the area and would not prejudice the aims of "Project Cowes" but a section 106 agreement would be required to ensure a reasonable timescale of availability of the leisure/retail public use elements, before any change of use to any other use is submitted and to ensure their availability at market rental rates during that time.

Policy/Principle  

Within development envelope but unallocated, so appropriate for redevelopment for similar purposes as existing, i.e. appropriate water front activities. Clearly the residential element of the scheme would not meet these requirements although the provision of housing units on a "brown field" "wind fall" site will help to meet the housing targets set in the strategic policies of the UDP. Furthermore, the development will be within the urban area and would be a large scale development within the defined development envelope of one of the Islands' main towns, all criteria set out in the strategic policies of the UDP. Additionally, S5 indicates that proposals which on balance are for the overall benefit of the Island by enhancing economic, social or environmental position will be approved providing adverse impacts can be ameliorated. Members must therefore address the issue as to whether the loss of water front employment potential to residential development, which the applicants argue is necessary to finance desirable improvements to the water front activities already taking place on the site, outweigh the loss of potential water front employment land.

The applicants submission indicates that the cost of developing marine facilities in Cowes of the type envisaged could not be supported from the income that might be gained. The development cost is likely to be in excess of £3.1 million and the potential income from the marina and shore related activities are only likely to support just under £2.4 million of development costs. With no likelihood of direct subsidy, it is expected that the land sale for residential development will bridge the majority of the deficit but this is highly dependant on the market that can be achieved, the number of units that can be offered for sale and the

extent of social housing required. Valuation agents have carried out a study to research these issues and confidential supporting information has been made available to officers.

The conclusion by the applicants is that the residential development proposed will not fully bridge the funding gap and that other sources of income will be required if the development is to proceed. Your officer’s conclusion is that in order to achieve a desirable development improving the marine berthing and storage/maintenance facilities, "enabling" development within site will be necessary. Although this element of the scheme will not comply with policy E7, the overall development would be in accordance with the principles of policy S5, providing that any identified adverse impacts can be ameliorated. Conditions can be imposed on any consent to ensure that the residential element is not occupied until the marine and sea defence wall have been completed.

The introduction of retail and leisure uses does provide some additional employment potential within the site and in broad terms, follows the initial principles for development arising out of "Project Cowes". The question of retail development on the site has been raised in the third party representations, and consideration must be given to such provision within the context of policy R2 of the UDP and the vitality and viability of Cowes and other town centres. The application site is outside any defined shopping area and as such, under R2, planning applications for small shops will be approved where they serve a local need only and are within an existing settlement or ancillary to a tourism or other specified use. In my opinion, the amount of retail floor space proposed (just over 200 square metres) is not likely to undermine the vitality and viability of Cowes or any other town centre and can reasonably be said to be ancillary to a tourism/employment related principle use. My conclusion on this issue is that the proposal will not contravene policy R2 of the UDP.

Although some of the third party representations raises issues relating to the loss of water front employment potential, I consider that such loss is offset by the improvements to facilities offered on the remaining site and in the improved mooring facilities so that those disadvantages are outweighed. I consider therefore that the proposal, in terms of policy and principle, can be supported. Subject to the views of the Property Services Manager, it would appear that the amount of residential development proposed is appropriate in that in accordance with the figures submitted, there will still be a short fall of funding, even if the residential element is fully developed. Therefore this "mixed" development scheme will not result in excessive developer profits.

The applicants have indicated that alternative boatyard and storage site is proposed to be located at Kingston, East Cowes. That site will provide in excess of 8,000 square metres of storage land (some 3,800 square metres will be lost at Shephard's Wharf) and 1,188 square metres of workshop accommodation, which is not currently available at the site. An application for a 40 ton "all tide" boat hoist at Kingston will be submitted in due course. At present, a 20 ton tidal hoist only is available at Shephard's Wharf. Subject to consents, boatyard should be operational October 2001 allowing construction of the Marina in winter 2003/4.

Appearance/Townscape

The visual appearance of the proposed marina pontoons and boat storage / maintenance facilities are considered entirely appropriate for this water front area of Cowes.

Although in outline, siting of the residential units proposed is not reserved for future approval, and therefore the layout of flats and, bearing in mind the number of units (51) proposed, the scale of the proposal in townscape terms must be given careful consideration, both in terms of relationship with existing development in the vicinity of the site and in terms of appearance from the River Medina and East Cowes. The scale of development suggested at the water front itself (i.e. 3 & 4 storeys) would appear appropriate but the principles of two six storey blocks, separated by some 30 metres and located 15 metres from Bridge Road and some 30

metres from the water front must be given careful consideration, as must the revised proposal, indicating two five storey blocks adjacent the Medina Road frontage.

In this context, the application, although outline, has been considered by both the Architects panel and the Council's "in house" Urban Design Specialist.

The Architects panel commended the proposal but noted a high level of car parking. They look forward to considering the detailed scheme in which landscaping will be an important element. The Council's Urban Designer considered that the relationship of development to Medina Road needed to be carefully considered, and as a result, the original proposal for six storey blocks on this frontage has been reduced and the revised plans now under consideration indicate five storeys on this frontage. This relates better to the three storey scale of buildings on the opposite side of Medina Road and two storey commercial buildings immediately north west.

Overall, in townscape terms, it is considered that this scheme would provide an exciting opportunity for an impressive "landmark" development on the Cowes water front. From the river and East Cowes, the development would be seen against the rising land to the rear and in the context of the substantial industrial buildings in Bridge Road and Thetis Road to the south. Bearing in mind the comments of the Architects panel, I believe that with appropriate attention to detail, including landscaping, design, materials, the proposal, although substantial, can be considered acceptable.

The Architects Panel comments regarding the amount of car parking but this is located centrally within the site and would be screened from Medina Road by the development itself, and, from the river and East Cowes, would be unlikely to be prominent, because of the pontoon moorings immediately on the seaward side. An open landscaped area is proposed in the eastern corner of the site adjacent the public slipway and this will add to the facilities available in the area.

Affordable Housing

This scheme, for 51 dwellings, will under UDP policy H14, require the provision of 10 affordable housing units. The Council's housing manager however recognises that properties proposed in this development are unlikely to be affordable to a housing association, even at a 50% discount. However whilst the housing register and the housing needs survey show a demand for affordable housing in Cowes (the statutory housing register shows that 94 Cowes people / families are seeking affordable rented accommodation) he would not recommend acceptance of any commuted payment, the "last resort" referred to in H14. In these circumstances, his second preference is to provide the 10 required affordable units on an alternative nearby site and the original submission showed the site of the Cowes Jalopy Shop on the corner of Medina Road and Bridge Road, as the site for ten 1 and 2 bedroomed flats. However, element has been deleted from the application, because of land ownership issues, but a second application has been submitted (by different applicants) for a development of ten 1 and 2 bedroomed flats on that site.

It has been suggested by the applicants that, if the proposed development is found in all other respects acceptable by the Isle of Wight Council as local planning authority, they would enter into a legal agreement which would secure the necessary affordable housing provision on a site elsewhere or a commuted sum paid towards affordable housing provision. Any such agreement would need to be worded in such a way that if the affordable housing or contribution were not delivered, then a commencement on the residential element of the application now under consideration could not be made. Such an arrangement would be acceptable to the housing manager, as fulfilling the obligations for affordable housing arising from the proposed development.

Ecology

The development proposed involves a new sheet-piled sea wall to replace the existing sea wall, removal of some slipways and jetties and piers and replacement with a new configuration of pontoons and a floating breakwater and 46000 square metres of capital dredging resulting in an increase in annual maintenance dredging of 2500 square metres. These marine elements will be likely to have a significant effect on the designated European sites within the Medina estuary and the Site of Special Scientific Interest. Therefore, an appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations has been undertaken, particularly as any impacts must be seen "in combination" particularly with the current application by East Cowes marina and in the light of previous developments in the vicinity.

As other marine consents and licences will also be required, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has undertaken appropriate assessment of the impacts of dredging and construction associated with phase 2 of the marine development at Shephards Wharf and the impacts of nearby capital dredging and disposal works at East Cowes marina. The assessments have been informed by material from English Nature and conclude that whilst there will be impacts from the construction, if general principles of environmental good practice are used, any significant detrimental effects should be avoided. A method statement will need to be agreed prior to works commencing in order to minimise any impacts from the construction works.

English Nature has agreed that the only element likely to have significant effects is the dredging. Three impacts (morphological, hydrodynamic and sedimentation) have been assessed and whilst potential adverse effect has been identified in respect of the morphological impact and the impacts on sedimentation, it is concluded that European site habitats will not be affected by hydrodynamic impacts as existing flow regimes will not be significantly changed.

The "in combination" effects with dredging by East Cowes marina and the yacht haven, town quay pontoon and frontage and the dredge of the approach channel, indicate that the most significant part of all these schemes is the dredging with the largest volumes from the sub tidal areas. These together with the dredging and disposal associated with Shephards Wharf proposal will have a long term in combination effect, unless suitable mitigation is agreed. This mitigation should ideally take the form of ensuring that sediment from maintenance dredging is returned to the estuary system and not removed outside the estuary. As mitigation will also address a long term environmental problem, long term solutions are acceptable. Also, field trials will be necessary to assess the impact of dredging on behaviour of the estuary and so the view of the licensing authority is that it is not reasonable to delay the current developments while the mitigation is designed and implemented. English Nature has agreed that in order to conclude there will not be an adverse effect, a condition will be placed on the licence detailing appropriate dredging processes or beneficial use scheme will be submitted to the licensing authority for agreement prior to the expiry of any marine consent issued. Given that East Cowes marina also has an application that requires similar mitigation, a joint project is recommended.

The conclusion of the appropriate assessment is therefore that:

"Provided that a licence is issued with a condition requiring Cowes Harbour Commission to agree a method of dredging that releases the material back into the estuary for any future dredging, it is the view of the licensing authority that the SSSI and the European site features that would be likely to be effected will be safeguarded by the mitigation suggested."

Providing therefore that a similar condition is imposed on any planning permission which might be granted, it is my view that any adverse effects of the proposed development on the

interests of the designated European sites will be mitigated and that the development can therefore proceed on that basis.

Flood Risk

Considerable discussions between the applicants and the Environment Agency have been undertaken on this issue. The Environment Agency originally raised objection to the proposal on the grounds that the site lies within an area at risk of tidal flooding leading to an increased burden on emergency services for rescue and damage reduction; the proposal does not have safe means of access in the event of flooding which would have adverse impact on health and safety of occupants and additional work / risk for emergency services and that the proposed defences would not provide the required standard of protection appropriate for the lifetime of the development.

As a result of the submission of further details, including a flood risk assessment, the EA does not now object to the proposal at this outline stage. The applicant appears to have met the minimum standard of protection to life although flood risk could be considerably reduced by better design and possible re siting of buildings. Suggest a further detailed flood risk assessment at reserved matters stage and suggests that appropriate conditions by attached to any planning permission, to require further flood risk assessment prior to commencement of any development, provision of a scheme for maintenance of flood defences, appropriate warning and evacuation procedures, land contamination assessment, foul and surface water drainage provision, method and timing of piling operations and protection of any fuel and chemical storage facilities.

There would appear therefore no fundamental reasons relating to flood risk or drainage issues, why the development should not be approved, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Parking/Access

Site is in parking zone 2 defined in the UDP and therefore provision of 0% - 50% maximum non-operational vehicle parking provision allowed on site. The 51 flats proposed would require a minimum of 1 space per bedroom and 1 space per 4 units for visitors. On the basis of two bedroomed accommodation therefore, 115 spaces would be required as the guideline figure. The 50 spaces proposed therefore fall well within the 0% - 50% requirement of parking zone 2 and the development therefore accords with the Council's parking guidelines, set out in the UDP provided that a Transport Infrastructure Payment of £38,250 is made. Such payment is required under appendix G of the UDP, to provide off site sustainable transport provision, in recognition of the reduced car parking provision within the scheme. This matter has recently been raised with the applicants, who make the point that the residential element of the scheme is "enabling" development and therefore if a contribution to the fund is insisted upon, less money will be available to fund the desirable marine related development.

14 spaces are shown immediately north east of the facilities building within the boat yard area and as a level, hard surfaced area, further parking can be available in this part of the site, should it be necessary.

Three main accesses are proposed onto Medina Road, one immediately south east of the facilities building, which would serve the boat yard area. The access proposed centrally between the two residential blocks fronting Medina Road would serve the 34 spaces centrally located within the "horse shoe" of residential development, whilst a further access in the southern part of the site would serve 14 spaces adjacent the south east boundary. The Highways Engineer is satisfied that these access points are acceptable, but recommends conditions regarding visibility splays, construction of access, and the provision and maintenance of the parking facilities and turning areas proposed.

Other Issues

The availability or otherwise of inshore lifeboat facilities is a private issue which must be resolved between the organisation and the developers, should the proposals proceed. Similarly, bearing in mind that the residential development (including any commitment to affordable housing) will not fully fund the desirable marine based elements of the scheme, I do not think it realistic to require the developers to contribute to the redevelopment or upgrading of the St. Andrews Hall nearby.

UDP policy D9 refers to the provision of works of art within major development schemes and although again, it may be difficult, in the circumstances, to require a direct financial contribution, I am confident that appropriate involvement at the design stage, particularly in the hard landscape elements of the scheme, could result in an appropriate contribution to the "boat trail" being promoted by the Island 2000 Trust. Any approval, could make appropriate reference to such proposals in landscaping conditions.

Other third party comments relating to loss of water front facilities have been covered in the first part of the evaluation above and the questions of loss of facilities must be seen against the provision of the additional moorings and the boat storage / maintenance areas. The crane at present on the site, will be replaced by a further crane to allow the lifting of boats from the water to the dry areas. Questions of danger to marine traffic will be managed by normal marine regulations and practices whilst any approval granted would require landscaping appropriate to the nature of the area.

Application has been subject of consultation with relevant drainage body which raises no objection. New surface water disposal system may be necessary, but site is currently totally hard surface and no significant difference in run offs are anticipated. Connection of foul sewerage from dwellings to existing system is acceptable.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set our in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Taking into account the policies and principles set out in the evaluation above, it is considered that the provision of residential development to fund desirable marine related facilities outweigh conflict with policy E7 of the UDP and furthers the strategic aims of the plan. The proposal, although substantial, will create a "landmark" development on the waterfront for Cowes whilst any adverse effects on designated European sites can be mitigated against in accordance with the appropriate assessment carried out by DEFRA. Flood risk has been taken into account and access and other technical elements are considered satisfactory. Affordable housing as required by UDP policy can be provided off site subject to appropriate requirements on Section 106 agreement.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL  

(SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO OFF SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION; PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE BOATYARD FACILITIES; PREVENTION OF SUBMISSION OF PLANNING APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE OF RETAIL/LEISURE ELEMENTS FOR 10 YEARS, & AVAILABILITY OF RETAIL/LEISURE FACILITIES AT MARKET RENTAL RATES DURING THAT TIME CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNCIL'S SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FUND OF £38,250. )

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application raises a number of major issues and is the subject of significant third party representation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application, the processing of which has taken 22 weeks to date.

The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits because, following advice to the applicant that the application was to be recommended for refusal because of fundamental objection from English Heritage, the applicant negotiated directly with English Heritage and Council Officers, resulting in the submission, on 24 February, of revised plans, to which it is understood English Heritage now has no objection.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Rectangular site, between Castle Road and The Grove, with frontage of some 52 metres to each. Depth of approximately 21.5 metres. Two detached dwellings (Yvery and Villa Rosa) with semi-detached pair of Georgian dwellings to the west (each with pedestrian access from Castle Road and vehicular access off The Grove) with detached dwelling to east, accessed solely off The Grove.

Castle Road is adopted highway with no footpath along the frontage of site and, where permitted, is heavily used for parking. The Grove is an unadopted gravel road between Bars Hill and Castle Hill, some 5 - 5.5 metres lower than the level of Castle Road. Yvery has vehicular access off The Grove with limited parking provision, whilst Villa Rosa has pedestrian access only. Besides the application site, The Grove serves a number of properties including parking for Osborne Court and access to Trinity Theatre. There is a protected Macracarpa tree in the eastern corner of the site.

Surrounding area generally characterised by residential development of varying ages, architectural styles and accommodation. The street scene in Castle Road has a predominance of Georgian appearance properties, with two storey frontages to Castle Road requiring four storey elevations to The Grove, because of the change in levels. There is a modern terrace of three Georgian style dwellings with garage access off The Grove, close to the junction of Castle Road with Castle Hill. To the southeast of the site is a series of detached dwellings, which relate to and have access off The Grove.

Generally the area is characterised by relatively low density detached dwellings, interspersed with substantial buildings such as Osborne Court and Trinity Theatre. There is also a recent development on the south side of Castle Road, opposite the junction of Bars Hill and Castle Road, comprising two groups of terraced dwellings with a new Masonic hall to the rear.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11050D - An application for a similar development of six houses and eight maisonettes in a two to five storey block was refused in August 2002 for reasons relating to:

· Excessive size and accommodation within proposed units representing overdevelopment at an excessive density giving rise to loss of outlook and an overbearing nature to the detriment of the pattern of development in the surrounding conservation area;

· Mass and height of frontage to Castle Road incompatible with pattern and scale of development in that road, again within the conservation area and with particular reference to the Georgian dwellings to the north and west resulting in overbearing and over dominant nature of development;

· Mass, height and design of frontage to The Grove, again in Cowes Conservation Area, overdominant in respect of immediate surrounding area and unacceptably prominent in views into the site from the Solent and Cowes Parade;

· Inadequate information in respect of foul and surface water drainage disposal.

All these reasons for refusal referred to the relevant policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal is submitted in an attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal set out above.

The nature of the development (i.e. a single block with frontages to Castle Road and The Grove) is similar to that previously refused but reduces the size of the individual units proposed and the number from 14 to 13. The general roof height of the building has been reduced by 0.75 metre and it has been reduced in width by 0.65 metre at its western end, and 0.9 metre at the east. The eastern most 10.3 metres of the building (two dwelling units) have been significantly reduced in height by some 2.4 metres (ridge) and 1.1 metres (eave). The gabled feature which previously accentuated this eastern end of the building from Castle Road has been moved westwards, so that the three gables proposed (central, east and west) are now closer together, with the eastern part of the building as a two storey addition.

The basement level below Castle Road has been reduced to a single floor (by less "digging out") which reduces the height of the elevation facing The Grove by one storey.

The architect calculates that the reduction in size of the units as well as the number of units themselves reduces the total floor area of the building from 3,164 square metres to 2,222 square metres (including balconies), a reduction of some 30%. The reduction in size of basement reduces the amount of cut into the slope between Castle Road and The Grove by 75% and in the elevation to Castle Road by 15% and in the elevation area to The Grove by 20%. Once again, full planning permission is sought for a development offering the following accommodation:

· Two four bedroomed maisonettes (previously six) - living room at second floor (Castle Road) level;

· Five three bedroomed maisonettes (previously four) - living accommodation at second floor level (Castle Road);

· Two one bedroomed maisonettes (previously none) - living room at first floor (Castle Road) level;

· Four two bedroomed flats (previously none) - all accommodation at ground floor (The Grove) level.

Materials proposed are buff brick plinth to ground floor, buff render to upper floors and reconstituted stone sills to windows, fibre cement slates to pitched roof, with replica cast iron railings to balconies and ballustrading fronting Castle Road and galvanised steel balconies and ballustrading with glass infill panels to The Grove.

Cross sections submitted showing contiguous piled concrete retaining wall along length of Castle Road (frontage faced with buff brick work) together with a geotechnical site report as submitted in connection with the previous refused proposal, with further supporting information from the agent and geotechnic engineer, confirming that the principles contained therein can be transferred to the current, reduced, scheme. A further 1.5 metre high buff brick/stone panel retaining wall and planters topped with decorative wrought iron ballustrading is shown on the frontage to The Grove, to support the patios proposed for the four flats at this level. Four parking spaces, adjacent the eastern end of the site are shown with access off The Grove, together with the retention of the protected Macracarpa tree and additional landscaping between the proposed development and the side boundaries.

In detail, the building has been designed to reflect the characteristics of the Georgian development which fronts Castle Road, with, on the Grove Road frontage, a more modern elevational treatment including balconies, three projecting bays (the central bay projecting more than the two end bays) each with substantial arched windows at top floor level. This would be a more modern elevation, fronting Grove Road and seen within the roofscape of Cowes from the harbour and East Cowes.

The end elevations are reduced in scale with secondary living room and bedroom windows, plus obscure glazed bathroom window to the flat at the eastern end, and secondary bedroom, utility and obscure glazed W.C./shower windows to the upper floors. On the western elevation, living room and bedroom windows plus obscure glazed en-suite are proposed for the flats, with obscure glazed bathroom and utility, kitchen and secondary living room windows on the upper floors to the end maisonette. A copy of the submitted design statement, prepared by the architect together with a letter identifying the design changes derived following discussions with officers and English Heritage are attached for Members' information at appendix A.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are contained in PPG1 (General Practice and Principles), PPG3 (Housing) and PPG13 (Transport).

PPG1 seeks to promote sustainable development with the objective of achieving economic development and the highest living standards whilst protecting and enhancing the environment. It emphasises need for a plan-led system, requiring that applications shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It also provides design guidance, summarised as follows:

· Appearance of development and its relationship to its surroundings is a material consideration with particular reference to design of buildings and to urban design;

· Urban design is defined as the relationship between different buildings; relationship between buildings and streets etc;

· Good design can help to promote sustainable development, securing continued public acceptance of the necessity for new development;

· Local Planning Authorities should reject poor design which may include schemes inappropriate to their context, e.g. those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings;

· Weight should be given to the impact of development on existing buildings and on the character of the areas recognised for their value, such as conservation areas;

· Proposals should be consistent with relevant design policies.

PPG3 emphasises the following:

· Development should meet housing requirements of whole community including those in need of affordable housing;

· Should provide wider housing opportunity and choice by including better mix in size, type and location of housing;

· Give priority to reusing previously developed land within urban areas to take pressures off greenfield sites;

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

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities within the range 30 - 50 units per hectare, which could be increased in town centre areas with good public transport;

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

· Does not advocate cramped development but seeks to promote good quality urban development.

PPG13 links transport to housing with particular reference to the important role that the sustainable transport policies play and refers to managing travel demand with particular reference to parking issues.

The DETR document "By Design - Urban Design in the Planning System - Towards Better Practice." Its aim is to encourage better design and to act as a companion guide to PPGs. It refers to:

· Scale, massing and height of proposed development should be considered in relation to those of adjoining buildings, the topography of the area, the general pattern of heights in the area and views and vistas.

Unitary Development Plan policies identify the site within Cowes Conservation Area. The Macracarpa tree in the southeastern corner of the site is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

The site is situated within Zone 1 of the Parking Guidelines Policy and is described as a town centre core area. The guideline policy (UDP Appendix G) states that no on-site parking, either operational or non-operational, should be permitted in this zone.

Other relevant Local Plan policies are as follows:

Strategic policies:

S1, S2, S3, S6 and S11.

More specific policies of the Plan which are considered relevant are:

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages;

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development;

G7 - Development on Unstable Land;

D1 - Standards of Design;

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site;

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas;

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements;

H6 - High Density of Residential Development;

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines;

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer - not available at the time of writing.

Southern Water indicate that foul drainage from the site could be accommodated in a new sewer leading to the existing sewerage system some 65 metres east of the site.

Discharge of surface water will have to be limited to no more than the existing. Calculations suggest this could be achieved by use of storage, assuming that existing properties drain to the sewer. Evidence required to show this is the case before approval can be given by Southern Water to the development. Southern Water comment that the developer has agreed to limit surface water discharge in this way.

Senior Structural Engineer, Building Control, has examined the Slope Stability report submitted by the applicant's consultant geotechnical engineer and comments that the report has investigated the ground conditions in accordance with PPG14, including bore-hole records, laboratory testing of soil samples and piezometric conditions. From this work it can be concluded that the site is currently stable (albeit marginally) and sensitive to any adverse variation in water levels. A drainage system to reflect the design criteria of the substantial piled retaining wall together with additional piling to support vertical loads from the building will be required.

He considers the report demonstrates and identifies the current stability of the slope together with preliminary design requirements to stabilise the site during and after the construction works, with an adequate factor of safety. However, careful consideration must ensure that the final design and supervision of the construction works are carried out for the contract period by the appointed geotechnical engineer, including monitoring of ground movements, the feasibility of using Castle Road for access to the site for piling equipment and other site traffic

for the contract period and disposal of surface water from the above ground building and design for limiting ground water levels must be clarified once Southern Water's requirements are established.

The Architects Panel has examined the scheme and was "somewhat concerned" that despite support of the previous scheme where the design was considered quite suitable for the location, the application had been refused.

Panel's opinion was that:

"Notwithstanding their previous comment, that this was an improvement to the scheme in general, particularly on the elevation to Grove Road, and Panel continued to support the design implications of this application."

English Heritage has reexamined the redesigned scheme following their earlier fundamental objections, and their officer is broadly content that the revised proposals have sought to address the concerns that have been set out. There is clearly room for detailed improvements, for example, deeper eaves to the Grove Road elevation, a further simplification of the large areas of gabled glazing and a landscaped softer edge to Grove Road. However, English Heritage is content for the proposed scheme to move forward with detailed advice from both the Council’s Conservation and Design Officers without further reference to English Heritage.

TOWN/PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council objects on grounds of overdevelopment, lack of car parking, monolithic block out of keeping in street scene.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Thirteen letters received from local residents, together with objections from Isle of Wight Society and Cowes Amateur Operatic and Dramatic Society. Objections raised are summarised as follows:

· Proposal has not been substantially altered, sufficient to overcome previous reasons for refusal;

· High density is not in keeping with The Grove and is too close to adjoining properties;

· Glad to see some parking, but four spaces not enough;

· Twenty seven parking spaces in Castle Road and fifteen dwellings with no off-street garage/parking - extra residents will result in grid lock - will Council consider "residents parking scheme" if application approved;

· Still comprises overdevelopment in conservation area as size out of proportion to nearby Nash buildings;

· Heavy construction traffic likely to lead to road collapse;

· Lengthy road closure for construction unacceptable to local residents;

· Proposal obviously aimed at second homes and will not alleviate any local housing problems;

· Little different from original but design now inferior - inbalanced in overall form and arched glazing to gables hideously dominant;

· Council "hell bent" on approving for reasons not understood - will utterly destroy character of The Grove and Cowes Conservation Area;

· Section 106 Agreement required if approved forcing applicants to undertake condition survey of objector's property to ascertain extent of inevitable subsequent structural damage;

· Character of this part of conservation area presently is two properties and gardens and development will destroy these buildings, style and character;

· Whilst appearance more in keeping with area, character and geology should lead to two separate blocks;

· Does not address a vehicle problem, Committee should talk with Castle Road residents to understand the problem;

· Loss of "Black White" house which is part of skyline, not just the Nash houses;

· Castle Road elevation acceptable but out of keeping with and overpowering The Grove;

· Density question not addressed and mass of building out of character, especially when viewed obliquely - ugly "housing factory" not complimentary to adjoining properties;

· Parking ludicrously inadequate;

· Ground stability concerns, especially 20 foot trench required for retaining wall;

· Nature, width, construction and restricted visibility at junctions with The Grove will increase traffic hazard caused by parking and increase danger to pedestrians, restrict emergency access with larger vehicles reversing into Bars Hill;

· The Grove is the only vehicle access to Trinity Theatre and would reduce capability for access by the disabled;

· Lack of parking for the development would lead to more parking on The Grove;

· Proposal does not provide "affordable" housing - Cowes "drowning under tidal wave of rising sea levels and empty properties";

· Surface of The Grove, especially after rain, difficult for pedestrians to negotiate, worse in areas where adjoining hedges have been taken out;

· Planning Authority should seek to obtain quality, not quantity;

· Provision of residents parking area would minimise problems;

· Connection to ancient sewer in The Grove is cause for much concern especially with such high density of development;

· Only 26 parking spaces for 29 houses, four spaces for thirteen more dwellings will make things worse;

· Size is out of context, Osborne Court is a "blot" and should not be copied, Gloucester Court replaced a previous large building and Royal London Yacht Club rear elevation is one storey whilst front is an elegant three storey with detached and semi-detached properties nearby;

· No objection to a development in keeping with other properties.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

The main issue for Members to consider in determination of this application is whether the reasons for refusal in respect of the application determined in August 2002 have been overcome in the revised submission. The main issues will relate therefore to the areas where changes have occurred to the scheme now submitted, i.e. the provision of car parking, the submission of drainage information ground stability, issues of scale, mass and detailed design relating to impact on the Conservation Area, in comparison with adjoining buildings and townscape.

Car Parking

The site is within Zone 1 as defined in Annex G of the Unitary Development Plan and therefore, under the UDP, “No onsite parking, either operational or non-operational will be allowed in this Zone.”

Members will note that a shortage of on-street parking has been identified in the representations as being a significant factor in this area. In response to this, four parking spaces have been provided at the eastern side of the site, on The Grove frontage. These spaces are stated in the submission to be replacement for four spaces currently existing within the two curtilages of the existing dwelling houses on the site. Whilst the provision of these four spaces is, strictly speaking, contrary to UDP Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines), Members may consider that if this were the only area within which the scheme were contrary to UDP policy, it would not be of sufficient weight to warrant refusal, bearing in mind the fact that four spaces exist on the site already. However, I am still awaiting the Highways Engineer’s comments on these issues and will report further at the meeting.

Drainage

The previous application was deficient in information regarding both foul sewerage and surface water disposal. The current application has been the subject of discussions between Southern Water and the applicants, as a result of which, Southern Water has indicated that foul drainage from the site could be accommodated into the existing sewerage system by the construction of additional sewerage to link to the sewer in Bars Hill.

With regard to surface water disposal, again the applicants have been in discussion with Southern Water who have concluded that discharge of surface water to the existing combined system is acceptable, providing it is limited to a runoff no greater than that which currently exists from the site. Submitted calculations show that in order to achieve the runoff amelioration required by Southern Water, 7.7 cubic metres of storage, together with a hydrobrake will be required and these are proposed to be located beneath the patio areas to the flats fronting The Grove.

I am satisfied now that adequate information has been submitted to allow a full assessment of the drainage implications of the scheme and that in view of the comments of Southern Water, an acceptable scheme of drainage can be provided. Should approval be granted, this issue will need to be covered by appropriate conditions.

Ground Stability

The previous application was supported by a geotechnical appraisal and the applicants’ agent has confirmed that the information contained within this study is still applicable to the scheme as now submitted. The geotechnical engineer concerned (who has also advised the Council on such matters) has been asked to confirm that this is indeed the case. The Council’s Building Control Engineer has examined the submitted Slope Stability Report and makes no adverse comment on its contents, but raises three issues as follows:

1. The design and supervision of the construction works should be carried out by the geotechnical engineer who produced the Slope Stability Report and this should include the monitoring of ground movements as agreed;

2. Highways and Transportation should advise on feasibility of using Castle Road for access for piling equipment and other site traffic;

3. Disposal of surface water and design for limiting ground water levels should be clarified once Southern Water’s requirements are established.

The applicants’ agent confirms that the structural engineer has been appointed for the project and that his work will include the design of the retaining wall and supervision of its construction. The foundations for the block of apartments is integral to the stability of the retaining wall to Castle Road and this is also part of his brief. Confirmation is also provided by the geotechnical engineer that the approximate level of water table at the site is beneath the proposed levels of the development and therefore it is unlikely that permanent groundwater drainage will be required. Some groundwater may have to be dealt with, particularly during the construction of the foundations but this seems unlikely on present evidence.

The question of using Castle Road for access to the site for building operations will be a matter for discussion with the Highways Engineer.

Overall, as with the previous scheme, the geotechnic implications of the development both for the site itself and the surrounding area have been fully assessed by a competent engineer and, should approval be granted, a covering letter should be sent to ensure that any building operations are carried out within the context of the submitted report.

Scale, Mass & Townscape

The principal issue, in my opinion, in the determination of the current application is the impact the proposed development would have on the townscape of Cowes, particularly on the designated Conservation Area.

Members will be aware that the Planning Authority has a duty to protect and if possible enhance Conservation Areas. As the application site is within Cowes Conservation Area and exceeds 1,000 square metres (actual site area is 1,100 square metres) it is necessary to consult with, and take into account the views of, English Heritage, the body which advises the Government on Conservation Area and built environment issues.

Members may recall that the previous scheme attracted serious objection from English Heritage and it was mainly on that basis that the recommendation for refusal was put forward. The current proposal has been redesigned to reduce its mass and accentuate some detailing, and English Heritage now recognise that the redesign of the Castle Road frontage has improved the relationship with the architecturally important dwellings (designed by John Nash) in Castle Road and that the reduction in scale of the eastern end of the proposed block is welcomed. However, in view of concerns over the bulk and nature of the elevations facing north (The Grove) especially when viewed from the northeast, The Parade and partly from Bath Road, the applicants architect has paid particular attention to the design and detail of this part of the building.

In more detail, the gables fronting onto The Grove have been extended away from the building 1.35 metres to enclose the original balconies and the walls to the maisonettes between the gables have been moved back by 225 mm to achieve increased definition of the gables and reduce the “slab like” elevation originally submitted. The roof to the top floors of the masionettes has been changed to a pitched roof and the eaves lowered, to give a more typical appearance in the context of the roofscape of Cowes and the height of the eastern west gables has been increased by 300 mm, all of which will increase the break in the roof line between gables.

The two storey arch top windows are designed as features in this elevation. The doors and windows between the gables have been simplified and with the additional depth to the balconies will help them receive views.

The floor level of the seaward half of the ground floor flats has been lowered by 450 mm which allows incorporation of arched heads to the windows and doors creating a brick “bridge” between the gables. The brickwork also conceals the balconies to the first floor maisonettes. The drop in floor level will also reduce the height of the boundary wall to the patios facing onto The Grove, the boundary wall to which now contains areas of planting, giving a softer edge to the development. The roof overhang has been increased and the eaves detailing of the roof has been simplified to give a sharper shadow line to the roof/wall junction.

With regard to this latter point, English Heritage advise that deeper eaves and a further simplification of the large areas of gable glazing would be advantageous. Should Members be minded to approve the application, these matters could be covered by condition.

Members should note that the local Architects Panel has considered the design issues of the proposed development in terms of its scale and mass and its more detailed elements. The recently refused scheme was supported by the Architects Panel who consider the currently proposed scheme an improvement to that refused, particularly on the elevation to Grove Road and the Panel continues to support the design implications of the application.

Members will appreciate that discussions undertaken since the previous refusal have resulted in some fundamental alterations to the scheme, sufficient now to enable the Government’s built environment advisors, English Heritage, to indicate that the scheme is acceptable within the context of the designated conservation area and the street and roof scape of Cowes. Mindful of this and the support for the development from the local architects panel, submission of satisfactory parking details and confirmation by appropriately qualified engineers that the ground conditions at the site are sufficient to accommodate the development proposed, I now consider that the application could be approved. I make this recommendation in the knowledge that the provision of four parking spaces within the site are contrary to UDP policy, but can be justified as replacements for those already on the site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that the reasons for refusal of the previous application have been overcome, particularly bearing in mind the advice of English Heritage and the Architects’ Panel.

Although lack of off-street parking in the area is an important issue, and UDP policies for the area would require no parking provision to be made, I consider the provision of four parking spaces within the site to replace those currently available, would be reasonable and the issues of drainage and ground stability can be covered by appropriate conditions, should the development be approved.

          RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Covering letter re ground stability)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint reports in application nos. TCP12010R (item 4) and TCP12010S (item 5)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint reports in application nos. TCP12010P (item 3) and TCP12010S (item 5)

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint reports in applications nos. TCP/12010P (item 3) and TCP/12010R (item 4)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The site of these applications has proved to be particularly contentious and the local Member is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application that has fallen outside the 8 week period due to the volume of work carried by the case officer.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Adgestone Vineyard comprises 3.98 hectares of land located on the northwest side of Adgestone Road, approximately 0.75 kilometre to the southwest of its junction with Bully's Hill (Downs Road). The site is roughly square, it rises fairly steeply to the north towards Brading Down and is an established vineyard. Hedgerows mark the boundaries and a public footpath/bridleway runs along the eastern boundary of the site.

The buildings occupying the site comprise one complex structure close to the highway which includes residential accommodation, press room, storage areas, a wine tasting area and cafe/tearoom and a small car parking area in front of the building with vehicular access to Adgestone Road. To the north of the building is a small domestic style greenhouse located on a concrete base. Approximately 50 metres to the west, situated approximately 6 metres from the southern boundary is a structure 6 metres by 4 metres and 3 metres high constructed in timber and corrugated sheeting, open ended on its southern side, described as a tractor shed. To the northwest of the main vineyard building are timber structures, two timber sheds joined or abutting, each 3.5 metres by approximately 2.4 metres, and a timber and corrugated iron flat roofed shelter contained within an area which has been cleared of vines and fenced.

The site is on elevated ground in a rural landscape and commands panoramic views from the southeast to the southwest quadrant. Similarly, the vineyard is visible from surrounding land and especially from the Downs.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In February 1968 the Secretary of State agreed Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights to erect agricultural buildings or carry out other agricultural building or engineering operations.

An extension to the vineyard buildings to provide stores, mess room, toilets etc. Approved in April 1984. Outline permission granted for proprietor's dwelling in June 1990. Alterations and conversion of part of vineyard building to form self-contained unit for proprietor in May 1992. Alterations, extensions and change of use to provide conservatory, bedroom accommodation, coffee shop and covered seating area, improvements to drive and parking area refused in March, 1998 on grounds of increased traffic using inadequate roads in the vicinity. Dry storage area, wine tasting areas and toilets approved subject to conditions in July 1998 and in October, 1998 consent was granted for continued use of the premises for the sale of beverages, soft drinks and food, with goods unrelated to vineyard activities subject to conditions, restricting parking, the area set aside for tearoom and goods sold or served.

The tearoom was originally approved, occupying an area of 4.2 metres by 8 metres located at ground level on the eastern side of the building. This area was agreed, defined on a plan required by condition.

In December 2000 an application was made for the retention of a pergola and decking at the rear of the vineyard building, the retention of the tractor shed, the resiting of storage sheds and a lean to for horse feed and equipment and the use of land for the keeping of a horse. For the retention of the greenhouse and for the retention of overspill car park and maintenance area. Also for the retention of the relocated tearooms and for additional residential accommodation and external alterations. The application was refused and the subsequent appeal, together with appeals against Enforcement Notices in May 2001 resulted in a mix of the decisions.

In effect the Inspector allowed parts of the proposal, granting consent for the retention of the pergola and decking, the additional residential accommodation and external alterations and for the use of the land for the keeping of one horse. At the same time parts of the proposals were refused planning permission and the appeals dismissed with the relevant parts of the Enforcement Notices being upheld, requiring the removal of the tractor and equipment shed and the two timber sheds and lean to and for the retention of the overspill car park and maintenance area, allowing six months for reconsideration of the resiting of the buildings and submission of a further planning application and, in addition, the Inspector imposed conditions stating that not more than one horse should be kept on the land; limiting the additional residential accommodation to purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling of which it formed part; restricting the sale of beverages, soft drinks, food and other items and wine tasting only to a time whilst the premises are in operation as a vineyard and winery and are open to the public as such; limiting the sales of beverages, soft drinks, food and other items to the area shown on the approved plan as wine tasting and shop area, wine tasting and coffee shop area and pergola and decking and limiting the number of seats to a maximum of eighteen; also prohibiting the sale of hot food for consumption on or off the premises.

DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS

TCP12010P seeks consent for the formation of a car park. The plan shows access to this car park to be via the same route as before, on the southwestern side of the winery reaching the car park in much the same position as before, the car park being virtually rectangular with overall dimensions of 24 metres by almost 17 metres, located approximately 3 metres from the hedgerow, marking the southwestern boundary of the site. In support of this application, the agent states that the car park has been reduced in area from that which has been refused from 28 metres by 18 metres to 23 metres by 17 metres and being moved down the slope by approximately 2 metres. He states that in the summer, when the car park is in use, it will be screened from the surrounding area by natural growth and that the car park is unlikely to have a capacity greater than 14 cars.

TCP12010R seeks an amendment to condition 4 of the appeal which restricts the maximum seating capacity at any time not to exceed 18 seats.

In support of the application the agent points out support given to the applicant by various parties including a letter from the Chairman of the Isle of Wight Visitor Attractions, the applicant's accountant and from the Southern Tourist Board.

The applicant assumes that the limitation on seating capacity was arrived at because of the number of seats in the coffee shop which were available when the inspection was carried out. The agent argues that permission was granted in the past for a cafe area which had 18 seats and also the wine tasting area which had 18 seats giving a total of 36 and argues that when they were combined the area was reduced and that the application seeks return to the original position, quoting that recently a winery tour and wine tasting was held for a group of 26 persons and that it would have been illogical to have closed the coffee shop to other visitors. Further in support, he draws attention to the fact that the upper area of the site will require the replanting of vines over the next four years and that approximately 48% of the vines have already been replaced in the lower area of the vineyard and that this would not have been possible without the total income from the business and will not be cost effective if the additional income from the support activities is not continued. In addition it states that the viability of the business will be adversely affected if a seating capacity restriction is retained which would result in the closure of the business and the loss of four full-time jobs and approximately twenty seasonal jobs.

TCP12010S seeks consent for the retention of animal shelters and for a replacement tractor and implement shed and storage shed. The plan shows the original tractor and implement shed to be demolished; its replacement to be sited closer to the existing field hedge on the southwest side of the vineyard, just a few metres to the west of the winery building. The building to be constructed in timber, overall dimensions of 6.6 metres by 4.9 metres with a flat roof with a maximum height of 2.2 metres above ground level with an open end on the northwest side.

The storage shed is shown to be located behind the greenhouse, adjoining the hedge and bridleway along the eastern boundary to have overall dimensions of 2.4 by 1.8 metres and located on an existing concrete base.

The two shelters are shown to be only 1.5 metres high and having overall dimensions of 2.1 by 1.5 metres and 1.5 metres square, constructed in timber and painted dark green, and sited against the eastern boundary of trees almost at either ends of the paddock.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Outside any designated development envelope and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

IW UDP policies G4, G5, D1, D2, T2, C2, C15 and C23 and in general terms, whilst supporting small scale tourism and diversification of agricultural activity, do so only if the environment is not prejudiced and problems of access are resolved and any structures are of satisfactory design. PPG7 general supports rural tourism so long as no harm is generated in environmental terms, also supports diversification of agricultural activities in appropriate cases.

Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights for erection of agricultural (including horticulture or viticulture) buildings.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

AONB Officer comments on each application.

TCP12010P (car park) - considers there to be insufficient information regarding access to the car park; that car park is of excessive size for fourteen vehicles and would be better sited in linear form up against the hedge in order to reduce impact and provided with permeable surfacing.

TCP12010R (condition variation) - does not believe that the Inspector mistakenly restricted seating to seventeen but was imposed in order to allow some flexibility where seating could be provided (inside or outside) dependant upon weather, without creating imbalance of uses on

the site or increasing the traffic generation of the site. Suggests that safety and visual impact should dictate numbers of vehicles and therefore seating capacity and that patrons should be discourage from using roadside parking.

TCP12010S (replacement tractor shed and shelters) - suggests that shelters are sensitively located against hedges and subject to satisfactory materials should not be a landscape issue.

Highways Engineer comments:

TCP12010P (car park) - recommends refusal as development would likely to generate increase in vehicular traffic where road system is unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate width and forward visibility and the extra car park is a demonstration of the applicant's intent to attract more customers to the site.

TCP12010S - no highway implications.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Town Council strongly oppose all applications reiterating reasons in original objections and that car park has already been refused and the seating capacity set by the Inspector.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters of objection from local residents on grounds of increased activity generated by extra seating and extra parking, will impact on the AONB and on matters of road safety.

Letters from Country, Land and Business Association support the provision of the car park stating that this small rural business is a good tourist attraction and caters for a growing number of visitors every year and that due to its access being in a narrow lane, requires adequate facilities for vehicles, that screening is good and provided safely.

Supports variation of condition to allow increased seating capacity as this unique rural business has a slow but steady increase in numbers and that restriction would seriously affect the continued viability of the enterprise and that once a party arrived the cafe would have to be shut to further visitors resulting in a reduction in tourist numbers which could affect the future and employment it provides.

Letter of support from National Farmers Union pointing out that diversification is Government policy; that the two small field shelters are necessary for stock; that the tractor and implement shed is necessary. States that the enterprise was already well established before the current applicants took it on and that there were larger numbers than presently attending including regular coach trade. States that by restricting numbers of visitors viability is dramatically affected and the business financially penalised. Suggests that enlarged parking area would be a positive move preventing current problems of vehicle parking on the road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

TCP12010P (car park) - this proposal remains almost identical to that which was the subject of the appeal except the size of the car park has been reduced from 28 metres by 18 metres to 23 metres by 17 metres and the position of the car park has been moved 2 metres closer to the hedge. In addition the agent has suggested that planting could take place on the northern side of the car park to reduce impact.

Determination of this application must be considered in the light of any change to circumstances and any further evidence submitted by the applicant and agent but bearing in mind the Inspector's decision.

The Inspector considered, in his report of 20 February 2002, that the original car park was in a congested triangular space in front of the building which visitors shared with the residents of the dwelling and the employees of the vineyard. He acknowledged the Council's view that the area was limited to restrict the number of visitors but the appellant was of the opinion that this in itself did not prevent people driving along the road to visit the site and that if the car park was full, they attempt to park on the verge or presumably drove off in search of an alternative attraction. He felt that, in those circumstances, the provision of a small car park would seem to be an advantage. He did not recognise that the size of the existing car park was an advantage nor did he consider its location to be appropriate and concluded that the cars parked on the overspill car park did have an impact on the landscape concluding further that the provision of additional car parking could be an advantage but not in that position. Accordingly he refused permission.

Changes to the scheme are limited to the marginal reduction in the area of the car park which has been marginally moved toward the southwestern boundary and the suggestion that additional planting could take place to reduce impact.

The Inspector concluded that the provision of some additional parking could be an advantage but it should be in a less sensitive location. In this instance the car park is similar in both size and location to that which the Inspector refused and I do not consider the proposed changes are material and certainly not sufficient to overturn the Inspector's decision. Whilst it is appreciated that the applicant wishes to segregate the overspill car parking from the area he wishes visitors to enjoy, it must be pointed out that those visitors must accept that they are visiting a working vineyard rather than a countryside attraction because, after all, the tourist orientated activities are supposed to be ancillary to the main activity on site which is viticulture and wine making. Acceptance of this current proposal to reject the Inspector's findings could be seen as the tourist orientated activities taking priority instead of what is supposed to be an ancillary and incidental use.

TCP12010R (condition variation to allow additional seating) - the Inspector imposed the following condition when determining the application which involved the resiting of the cafe:

"No sales of beverages, soft drinks, food or other items shall take place outside the areas shown on the approved plan as wine tasting and shop area, wine tasting and coffee shop area and pergola and decking and no more than eighteen seats shall be provided for customers at any one time."

The basis upon which the submission for the variation of the condition has been made is made on erroneous assumptions by the applicant because that was the number of seats in the coffee shop area when the inspection was carried out, due to the outside seats being removed for storage during the winter months and that, under normal circumstances, and for the majority of the year, there are also seats in the pergola area. Furthermore, the agent suggests that permissions previously granted allowed for eighteen seats for the wine tasting area and a further eighteen seats for the cafe, giving 36 seats in total.

In the application for the wine tasting area, there was no reference to numbers of seats and the plan accompanying the application indicated the area would also be providing toilets and a bar area where the serving of samples would also take place. There was no restriction on seating capacity but the area for visitors was very restricted. Similarly the permission granted in October 1998 for the continued use of the premises for the sale of beverages, soft drinks and food also did not specify a number of seats but a condition required the submission of a plan indicating the limits of the sales area shown to be 4.2 metres by 8.4 metres which, when considering the area for display and its associated service would have restricted considerably the numbers of seats available.

It is quite clear from the Inspector's decision notice that he understood the continuing situation and the applicant's desires. He said:- "In practical terms it is said for the appellant that the deck allows a further eighteen cafe seats over the seventeen available within the buildings. They could only be used in good weather and it is suggested that it is unlikely that both would be fully used together. That may not be possible in bad weather but I do not see why it could not happen when it is fine and no doubt Mr Stockman would welcome that. However, it has been proposed on his behalf that a condition could be imposed restricting the total seating capacity of the cafe and wine tasting area so that the terrace could be used in fine weather without increasing the capacity of the cafe. I think that would be reasonable." From the above it is clear that he was perfectly aware that the deck would allow for a further eighteen seats over the seventeen available within the buildings and that would make a total of 35 and whilst acknowledging that may not be practical in bad weather he does not see why it could not happen in fine weather. In addition he was quite clear that the condition should restrict the seating capacity so that it did not increase the capacity of the cafe if it enabled the decking to be used. In fact the condition had been proposed on behalf of the appellant to restrict the total seating capacity of the cafe and wine tasting area. I do not consider there have been any alterations in circumstances nor any evidence proffered sufficient to overturn the Inspector's decision.

TCP12010S (replacement tractor shed and shelters) - the Inspector intimated that, in principle, a tractor shed and shelters were acceptable but the position, construction and visual impact were unacceptable so long as size, materials and siting could be resolved. It has always been my contention that the existing structures were of an adverse visual impact due to their siting, materials and general appearance and accordingly negotiations have taken place in order to achieve what is felt to be an acceptable compromise. The replacement tractor shed is shown to be of a much lower height, tucked in behind the existing hedgerow which can be maintained at an adequate height and augmented where necessary to ensure effective screening and materials which are more appropriate in this setting. The two animal shelters are significantly smaller than those originally sited and in positions where a backdrop of planting and with additional planting and better quality materials, their impact will be significantly reduced. Subject to those conditions I consider this application is now acceptable.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission to parts of the proposals and to refuse planning permission for others, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development may have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people and of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, this has to be balanced with the rights of the other parties. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of those parties it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the other parties and it is considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having considered all the material factors as referred to in the evaluation section above it is considered that the replacement shelters have overcome the objections originally identified to the buildings previously erected but the increase in seating capacity and the overspill car parking area remain unacceptable and contrary to policies as described above and therefore would be contrary to those policies contained within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

TCP12010P - REFUSAL

TCP12010R - REFUSAL

TCP12010S - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where they are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This is a major application and the reason for the delay in processing is the lack of Highway Engineer's observations and heavy case load carried by Officer.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to the former Holliers Farm, the premises formerly owned and run by the Isle of Wight College as an agricultural educational establishment. It encompasses a large tract of land comprising 33.5 hectares of land with a substantial frontage to the A3054 from a point opposite Branstone Farm in the north westerly direction almost to Jubilee Nurseries, a distance of about 340 metres except for an access to a residential property situated close to the main complex of buildings. The site reaches, at its eastern most extent, almost to Princelett Shute and almost to Bathingbourne Farm at its western extent and approximately 700 metres in a southerly direction.

The vast majority of the land is open, relatively flat and undeveloped, field boundaries being marked by hedgerows but in the southwestern extent of the site there are ponds at a lower level.

All of the buildings are situated in a central complex close to the A3054 and comprise a mix of steel framed agricultural type buildings clad in mostly timber and corrugated sheet steel and, in addition, there is a two storey brick work building close to the front of the site and, immediately to the east, a temporary portacabin style building single storey with a flat roof. The southern most buildings are timber framed and clad. There is also a polytunnel towards the western end of the complex.

The southwestern side of the A3045 is open agricultural land and with the exception of the Holliers Farm buildings there are 3 dwellings in close proximity on this side of the road. These are located immediately adjoining the northwestern boundary, a property located to the east of the complex with a short access track off the A3045 and, further to the southeast, another dwelling again accessed off the main road by a narrow track, both of these properties are completely surrounded by the land comprised in Holliers Farm. There are also dwellings on the northern side of the road and further to the east adjacent to Branstone Farm.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications between 1974 and 2001 relating to developments at Holliers Farm to be used in connection with the former educational use.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks to change the use of the buildings and land to a Victorian themed park.

It is intended to close off the existing vehicular access which is presently situated immediately in front of the existing buildings and open a new access in a position approximately 18 metres to the northwest linking with a car park and coach parking area sufficient for approximately 8 coaches and 57 cars. Plans show the existing two storey brick building to become a museum, the buildings immediately behind it and a new construction, to be used for craft workshops and display whilst the main buildings located on the western side to be used as an exhibition, cinema, lecture hall with an entrance building and shop located at its southwestern end. The courtyard in between and surrounded in proposed to be a landscaped, cobbled courtyard.

The existing buildings are proposed to undergo significant changes including a covered link between the two buildings nearest the front of the site with the top halves of many of the buildings being re clad and either substantially rebuilt or new buildings erected, including a tea room and cook house, the tea room taking the form of a large glass house structure, the cook house being constructed in masonry with a glazed link through to the tea room.

It is proposed to use rough brick work finished to the lower part of the walls with vertical timber stained boarding above to those buildings which are to be reworked, with green corrugated sheet roofing.

Additional information supplied regarding the details of the operation show that it is intended to operate between 0900 hours to 1800 hours in high season between Easter and October and seven days a week, and otherwise 1000 to 1600 hours, five days a week for the remainder of the year. The numbers of employees at the venue will be twelve, full time.

At this stage only informal activities are anticipated outside of the buildings and courtyard area where patrons will take informal walks through a Victorian garden and longer distance walks over the site; it is anticipated that there will be pony trap rides around the site and that other activities may take place within the courtyard, for example a juggler, magician and street theatre.

The coach park will hold a maximum of 8 coaches but it is anticipated that there will be approximately 4 or 5 there at any one time with varying levels of car parking up to the maximum of 57.

At this stage it is estimated that the maximum number of patrons per day could be about 800 and it is hoped that an open top bus may be used to bring patrons from Sandown to the site and return them after their visit. The shop is anticipated to sell souvenirs, gifts, craft goods and other tourist type goods and the cafe is likely to sell cold foods such a sandwiches, cakes but to serve teas, coffees and other soft drinks. In addition, once a day a Victorian lunch will be served (such as rabbit stew). The activities are said to be special effects and demonstrations within the buildings which will not generate any significant noise. The inside of the buildings will be lined with sound absorbent material. A letter of explanation is appended at the end of this report.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Policies T1 (Promotion of Tourism and Extension of the Season), Policy T2 (Tourism Related Development), Policy T9 (Small Scale Rural Tourism Development), Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings), Policy C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), Policy G1 and G5 of UDP apply. PPG21 relates to tourism and gives advice on government support for tourism, PPG7 relates to countryside and the rural environment detailing the need to preserve the countryside and supports tourism.

The site is not under any specific designation.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer recommends the hours limited to 0800 to 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0900 to 1400 hours on Saturdays and prohibit it on Sundays and Bank Holidays in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

No comments from Highway Engineers at the time of writing.

Rights of Way Section do not foresee any difficulties and have informed the applicants of the existence of the rights of way and the need to ensure they remain undamaged and open.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None received at the time of writing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE point out development would result in the loss of agricultural land and buildings and that the application has insufficient information properly to assess the implications with regard to viability and clarification of the proposed uses.

Ramblers Association raise concern that rights of way are not shown on the plans and there may be a possible adverse affect on them.

IOW Observatory raise question of lighting and consequent light pollution.

Seven letters of objection from local and Island residents objecting on grounds of inadequate and dangerous access on a fast piece of road; that noise generated by the activities especially at weekends and evenings would be unacceptable; adverse effects on rights of way; adverse effects on habitats for fauna presently using the site; increased traffic exiting onto a dangerous and fast piece of highway; inappropriate development in the countryside are site which is outside any designated development envelope concluding that such a development would be contrary to policy; visually intrusive development; overlooking of adjoining properties and loss of agricultural land and buildings.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given opportunity to comment but no observations have been received.

EVALUATION

In essence this application seeks to use the former teaching farm buildings and land as a tourist attraction, a site which is located within the predominantly rural and agricultural landscape. Determination therefore turns on matters relating to policy and principle, access considerations; affect on the area generally and, more specifically, the effects on neighbouring properties.

In policy terms support is forthcoming for tourism related developments in Policies T1, which supports tourism generally and seeks to extend the tourist season, and in T2 supports planning proposal for tourism, entertainments and related coach and car parking subject to certain other criteria such as design, access, parking and landscaping. Both these policies support tourist related developments providing possible adverse effects are minimised and, in T2, where these proposals are acceptable within the local environment. Essentially the proposals are indoor entertainments although there will be some activities undertaken outside. Such bad weather facilities will enable the centres use outside of a traditional holiday season and in times of inclement weather.

Policy G1 expects most development to be located within existing settlements and Policy G4 expects any new developments to harmonise with their surroundings and landscape subject to details of design and landscaping, access, parking whilst having property regard to all access needs and traffic generation including access by foot, cycle and public transport. Policy E1 encourages the development of new employment uses in suitable locations on allocated land or within or adjacent to existing settlements thus attempting to reduce the need to travel.

Probably the most important policy in determining such an application is Policy C17 which relates to the conversion of barns and other rural buildings. Tourism is one of the specified uses to which redundant rural buildings is often accepted but C17 supports such conversions provided that the building is of substantial, sound and permanent construction and is structurally capable of reuse and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction. It is also requires that the proposed conversion respects local character, building styles and materials and would not entail any loss of significant archeological or architectural features both internal and external which contribute to the character of the building and its surroundings. C17 also presumes that the traffic generated by the new use can be safely accommodated by the sites access and local road system and there is sufficient room within the curtilage for servicing and vehicle parking without detriment to the visual amenity of the area.

The majority of these buildings are steel framed and of comparatively modern construction. They are of little architectural merit but the adaptation is proposed to be carried out by erection of some buff facing brick walls to half height and timber, vertical stained cladding above with natural or corrugated steel roofs with the intention of unifying all the buildings in this particular colour/finish scheme. The buildings would, however, retain their basic agricultural appearance and style but it is inevitable but that the character of the buildings will alter since the additions to the complex of buildings include the covered link incorporating a small 'bell tower' and the new glass house styled cafe and new cook house, all of these policies offer some degree of support subject to provisos which mitigate against adverse effects and therefore determination of the application in terms of policy needs to be carefully considered.

In terms of access, the change of use as proposed is inevitably going to result in an increase in use. Hitherto access to the teaching unit involved a lesser number of persons accessing and leaving the site, persons who would have been familiar with the attributes of access. The new use would involve access by persons unfamiliar with the access and would involve the manoeuvring of coaches into and out of the site. The new use will also involve the increased frequency of visits but, in favour of the development, the access point has been moved approximately 80 metres to the west. This would enable improved visibility in both directions and includes the removal of a substantial length of hedgerow to improve visibility. Such a removal, if permitted or required would need to be accompanied by reinstatement in a more suitable position farther back into the site to ensure a character of this area is not significantly adversely affected.

The increased use of the access and its resiting closer to residential property is likely to result in disturbance to properties on the northeastern side of the A3054 but the degree of additional disturbance will be exacerbated by the hours of operation.

All policies mentioned above stress the importance of the need to harmonise any development into an area. Policy G5, whilst stating that development may exceptionally be permitted in the countryside (in a rural location) if it is of benefit to the rural economy, as well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale if it is an appropriate rural tourism development. However such developments will not be acceptable where it would cause the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural, horticultural or forestry land or reduce the quality of the environment and landscape. Similarly T1 and T2 also seek to minimise any detrimental or adverse impact. Policy C17 allows for adaptation of rural buildings for recreational purposes so long as environmental or detailed factors are satisfied such as adequate access and parking facilities can be provided and other structures associated with the use should not harm the amenity of the area. The proposed use must generate higher levels of traffic, drawing on at least Sandown and Shanklin tourists if not Island wide tourists, encouraging additional use of a private car rather than public transport and it may be more appropriate if such a use were sited on those areas which have been designated for tourism developments in the UDP. Increased vehicle activity, noise and light pollution, especially if the opening hours are long are all likely to impact on the character of this area.

Turning to affect on neighbouring properties, there are probably 9 residential properties in relatively close proximity to the complex of buildings which would be adversely affected by any increase in noise or light pollution, especially if external activities took place and the opening hours were extended into the evenings. The two properties which are most likely to be affected are the cottage situated adjoining the northwestern boundary, some 80 metres from the car park and Purbeck House located only 20 metres from the nearest building, a new structure proposed to be used for craft workshops and display. In addition the manoeuvring of vehicles the manoeuvring of vehicles, including coaches around and in and out of the car park onto the highway is likely to result in disturbance to properties immediately opposite the site. Increased noise levels from the site, especially from external activities or noisy internal activities if the buildings are not insulated correctly will inevitably impact on other residential properties further afield.

It should be remembered that there are public footpaths which traverse the site, one of which passes the complex of buildings in extremely close proximity. Bearing in mind it is the applicants declared intention to operate pony rides throughout the open fields attached to the complex of buildings there may be some conflict with preventing unauthorised access. However, the applicants have been advised of the need to maintain free passage along the footpaths so that the rights of way could not be blocked.

In summary it is acknowledged that UDP policies partially support such a proposal, given the appropriate site. However, taking the implications of the proposals as a whole, bearing in mind the proposed activities, the details of the conversion, the significant amount of new buildings and degree of refurbishment, the increase in vehicular access and egress to and from the site, the sites relative isolation from its main source of patronage and the implications of sustainability, I consider the site to be inappropriate for the proposed use which would be more appropriately sited in the tourism area of Sandown or Shanklin rather than in open countryside. Accordingly I consider the proposal would be contrary to Policy C17 and T2 where such new facilities should be located in sustainable locations. Similarly the proposal would be contrary to G5 as it is felt that in this rural location the site is particularly visible and the development and its associated activity would reduce the quality of the environment and landscape. I would therefore conclude that the development is inappropriate and should be refused.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Whilst there is a presumption in favour of development in the interests of the Council's desire to promote tourism and to generate employment it is felt that, in this instance, the location of the proposed use is inappropriate bearing in mind the level of activity likely to take place on site and the resultant effect on adjoining properties. The conversion of this complex of buildings including the erection of new, additional buildings of substantial scale would not be consistent with Policy C17 (Conversion of Barns and Other Rural Buildings) nor consistent with Policies T2 and G5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

       RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

See joint report in application no. TCP/21224/C (item 8)

       RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

Joint report with application no. TCPL/21224B (item 7)

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

These applications relate to the demolition of the remainder of an important listed building in Cowes and the redevelopment of the site. Committee has already considered prosecution regarding illegal demolition and will need to consider the appropriateness of replacement buildings proposed for the site.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are a listed building and a minor application, the processing of which has taken 7 weeks and 1 day to the date of the meeting.

Determinations of the applications at 18 March meeting would mean that they have been dealt with within the prescribed time limits.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is 'L shaped', with frontage of some 7.8 metres to the west side of High Street, about 10 metres north of its junction with Sun Hill. Character of High Street is mainly retail with some other commercial uses at ground floor, and a mix of uses, including office and residential on the floors above. Widens out to some 15 metres, 8 metres back from High Street, behind number 46. Total site depth about 23 metres.

Site formerly occupied by the "Three Crown" public house, which itself was an 'L shaped' building, the rear part of which has now been demolished. The front 7 metres or so of the building adjacent High Street is all that now remains. Site rises towards the rear by some 1.5-2 metres, with a 2-3 metre high block wall on western boundary.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21224/MB/1043 & LBC/21224A/MB/1043 - Proposed covered area for storage and seating; alterations to existing window to provide double access to rear of building, planning permission and listed building consent granted on 16 March 1993.

Planning permission subject to a condition that enclosed garden area should not be used for musical entertainment without written consent of the Local Planning Authority and the LBC required by condition that the new timber doors should be of stained hardwood to match existing.

DETAILS OF APPLICATIONS

TCP/21224/B seeks to redevelop the whole site for a "jazz cafe" on the ground floor frontage, with dance hall area at the rear and kitchen, toilets and cellar in the northern part of the rear of the building. This part would occupy the former garden area and be "dug-in" by some 2 metres, so that the floor level will be the same as the High Street frontage. Above the eastern part of this at first floor level is managers accommodation comprising two bedrooms, kitchen, living room, bathroom and w.c. together with office and staff room. On the second floor is proposed living accommodation for staff including living room, kitchen, bathroom, w.c. and four bedrooms (three double and one single) whilst on the third floor, in the central part of the building only, is proposed staff accommodation comprising living room, kitchen, bathroom and three bedrooms (one twin).

The frontage to High Street would retain a passageway along the northern side of the site to gain access to the rear of the premises, whilst the frontage would be rebuilt in a similar design to the existing, but without the "ball finial" presently at the gable apex of the frontage. The rear, four storey block, is set back minimum 6 metres maximum 9.4 metres from the High Street frontage with the pitched roof about 0.8 metres lower than and at right angles to, the adjoining property to the south, with the main element, running north south, ridge line parallel with High Street about 1.2 metres lower than the property to the south and 1.7 metres above the ridge of the adjoining property fronting High Street, behind which it sits. It would be approximately 8 metres from the rear (western) boundary.

Materials proposed are handmade clay facing bricks with brown plain clay tiles to the roof. Elements of the building would be colour washed to match existing.

LBC/21224/C seeks consent for the demolition of the remaining part of the listed building and for the rebuild and upgrade of the premises on ground floor and reconstruction and extension to residential quarters above. The application forms indicate that the ground floor wall to the adjoining property number 44 is to be supported but the remainder of the building is "too unstable to be retained."

Two reports are submitted with the application, one from consulting engineers, prepared before the collapse of the major part of the building, the conclusion of which is that specialist scaffolding to the front and side walls of the public house should be installed, for support purposes and the spine beam running the full length of the building laterally braced to help to restrain the internal structural framework. Further investigations would be needed regarding potential foundation design but, as far as the redevelopment proposals are concerned, the engineers strongly recommend new accommodation and facilities be enclosed beneath a totally new structure rather than attempting to refurbish and indeed underpin the existing weakened building. Although accepting that it is a listed building, engineers consider the hazards of dealing with the building are too great and in themselves would create substantial risks.

The second report, again prepared before the collapse of the building, provides a structural assessment and identifies a number of weaknesses and distortions within the building and concludes with the expectation that the majority of the building should be demolished and rebuilt, particularly as the engineers impression is that on opening up the structure, further decay and defects will be revealed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG6 (Town centres and retail development) seeks to locate retail and appropriate commercial/leisure uses within town centres, in order to maintain their vitality and viability through the diversity of uses available and their accessibility to people living and working in the area. These policies reflect the policies of PPG13 (Transport) which seek to reduce the number of journeys by the private car by concentrating facilities in areas well served by public transport and where "linked trips" can be encouraged.

PPG15 (Planning and the historic environment) gives guidance on listed building control as well as development within conservation areas and encourages early consultation with developers and consultees. Developers should be expected to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special interest of the site or structure and to provide written information or drawings as may be required to understand the significance of a site or structure before an application is determined. Planning authorities are required, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses. New buildings should be carefully designed to respect their setting, follow fundamental architectural principles of scale, height, massing and alignment and to use appropriate materials. This does not mean new buildings have to copy older neighbours in detail, but should together form a harmonious group.

With regard to demolition, PPG15 advises that whilst the aim of policy is to preserve historic buildings, there will very occasionally be cases where demolition is unavoidable. The listed building controls ensure proposals for demolition are fully scrutinised before any decision is reached and have been successfully in keeping the number of total demolitions very low. It advises that:

"The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or of failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses for them or to incorporate them into new development."

Within the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, the site is shown to be within the town centre boundary, although not within the "retail only frontage" area. It is also within the Cowes conservation area and the building is listed Grade II.

The following policies of the UDP are considered to apply:

G4 - General locational criteria for development

G6 - Development in areas liable to flooding

D1 - Standards of design

D2 - Standards for development within the site

D11 - Crime and design

D12 - Access for people with disabilities to buildings open to the public

B1 - Alterations and extensions to listed buildings

B2 - Setting of listed buildings

B4 - Demolition of listed buildings

B6 - Protection and enhancement of conservation areas

B9 - Protection of archaeological heritage

H10 - Residential development above ground floor level in town centres

P1 - Pollution and development

P5 - Reducing the impact of noise

TR3 - Locating development to minimise need to travel

TR7 - Highways considerations for new development

TR16 - Parking policies and guidelines

U11 - Infrastructure and services provision

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Officer and Environmental Health Officer have been consulted and any comments received will be reported at the meeting.

Principle Building Control Surveyor confirms that surveys carried out on applicants behalf were suitable for the purposes of the reports and the conclusions drawn appear properly to arise form the results of the surveys. Although structural defects were noted and rebuild may have been most practical and economic, he does not believe that demolition of the structure was inevitable. Major structural repairs would however have been needed and these would have to have been carefully planned to maintain the stability of the existing structure. Any additional storeys added to the building would have imposed increased loading on the existing structure which it would not have been capable of carrying. A new support framework would have been necessary but may well have proven impractical and created further difficulties and therefore rebuilding would have been the most appropriate course of action.

As a result of the collapse, the integrity of the structure that remains has been adversely affected and whilst it is theoretically possible to incorporate these parts in a new building, practical difficulties would be encountered giving the need to support these fragile parts and allow for differential settlement. The staged demolition approach is the only practical and, in the mid-long term, safe solution available now.

Conservation Officer comments that, assuming elevation to street can be saved, shop front must be replaced to replicate original. As a listed building, it deserves authentic restoration. Oldest part of building has been demolished - pointless to insist on rebuild as original, therefore ground floor replacement is acceptable.

Elevations of rear section are totally unacceptable, appear unrelated and dominant. Four storeys is one too high, roof should drop down close to original height. Overall, proposal too massive, out of scale, details of windows, materials etc. too sketchy, balconies wrong, handling of elements is crude and not related to sensitivity of restoration of listed building or development in conservation area.

Engineers reports do little more than justify taking down of the building. He concludes there are no redeeming features in the proposal and recommends refusal.

Environment Agency indicate no flood risk assessment, no details of levels and escape route in the event of flood have been submitted. Request deferral until additional information received.

English Heritage has been consulted, any comments received will be made available at the meeting.

Ancient Monuments Society urge that English Heritage should offer an independent view of the capacity of the building to be retained and repaired. The interest of the remaining 18th Century shell should be gauged. The design of the new build is without character and looms over the retained public house in an unneighbourly way. There is confusion in the submission as to what of the original building is to stay.

Victorian Society comment that as collapse is understood to have been caused by inadequate foundations, would not oppose the application.

CPRE consider building should be reinstated where possible. Orderly demolition is necessary and frontage reconstruction of original features should be supervised by the Conservation Officer. Fourth floor is unnecessary and at odds with listed building design. Proper sound insulation needed for "jazz cafe".

Isle of Wight Society wishes to be assured that existing street scene will be replicated.

County Archeologist comments that this was an extremely early building which may have remnants of earlier buildings beneath. These must be recorded. May also be buried archeological remains and these should be recorded. Watching brief also required. Condition to achieve these is recommended if consent is granted.

Georgian Group advise building dates from 18th Century with 19th Century facade. No drawings so cannot comment in detail. Hope that public house is not threatened by demolition. Asked that relative heights of Three Crowns, adjoining buildings and proposed mew build be given full consideration. Due consideration should also be given to setting of the listed building, when determined.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Town Council has no objections.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Following views received in respect of both applications.

Nine letters received objecting on the following grounds:

·Grade II listed building therefore must be restored to original condition to preserve Cowes history;

·No need for amount of accommodation proposed - significant increase in building volume - why?

·No application notices visible at site;

·Ground in area not stable - doubt if able to support building bigger than the original;

·If site/building to small for project, owner should have bought bigger property;

·Will restrict natural light to adjoining design office to west - precision drawing and colouring of plans requires good daylight at all times. Only windows to drawing office face the site and new building will be 1 metre closer and some 6 metres higher than that previously on the site. Proposal therefore contravenes relevant parts of UDP policies D1 and D2;

·Diminution of light will affect adjoining business and therefore contravene human rights;

·Increase in size of building proposed wholly inappropriate for listed building in conservation area;

·Loss of privacy to occupiers of Crown Court, adjoining residential property to west, through overlooking;

·Possible structural damage to adjoining premises if development proceeds;

·As demolition took place without consent, rebuilding should be as the original building;

·Do not oppose rebuilding or use as licensed premises;

·Precedent for other roof line development, creating balconies etc. for sea views, resulting in increasing "assault" on skyline of Cowes;

·Additional service vehicles required over pedestrian precinct already operating at maximum capacity;

·No provision for parking for up to 15 extra residents;

·Piled foundations may be needed, construction could damage adjoining properties;

·Ratio of living accommodation to commercial premises illustrates intention to create profitable development;

·Four storeys simply to provide sea views, which did not exist for original building;

·Four storeys will obscure other buildings behind and be detrimental to roofscape of Cowes;

·Fire/emergency escape and gathering points not considered/provided at rear of building;

·Question concept of "jazz cafe" as compared with licensed premises - potential for noise nuisance and disturbance;

·One of older and more picturesque buildings in Cowes - should be redeveloped more in keeping with origins and attractive variety of the street;

·Opportunity to scale down nuisance and public to this development should not be lost.

EVALUATION

TCPL/21224B/P161/03

Determining issues in respect of this application are considered to be policy, effect on listed building and conservation area in relation to scale/mass of proposed development and street scene, impact on neighbouring properties and occupiers, and flood risk.

With regard to policy, the uses proposed, i.e. jazz cafe/licensed premises with residential accommodation over are acceptable. Site is within the development envelope and within the town centre, where such uses would be entirely appropriate. The principle of leisure use replaces a similar former use of the site and will contribute towards the vitality and viability of the town centre, including the evening economy.

However the principles of redevelopment must accord with UDP policies relating to design and impact on the conservation area and protection of listed buildings. In this context, concerns have been expressed by the Conservation Officer, which I also share, that the scale and mass of the proposed four storey development in the central part of the site would be unduly dominant in this part of the conservation area and would have an unacceptable impact because of its height and mass. For these reasons, I consider that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of UDP policies D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards for Development Within the Site), B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas).

In addition, whilst the proposal would be to demolish the frontage part of the site and rebuild it to virtually exactly the same appearance, the submitted drawings do not provide adequate detail to ensure that this would be the case.

Although the site is located within the town centre, there is a mix of uses within the vicinity, including residential accommodation. A public house previously existed on the site, and the proposal now is for further licensed premises, including the provision of musical entertainment. No information has been submitted to show how any potential nuisance to nearby residential or commercial occupiers will be addressed or ameliorated. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the UDP which requires the noisy activities likely to impact upon sensitive development will require details of mitigating measures to accompany any planning application.

The greater height of the building now proposed above what was previously on site and the location of the residential block some 1 metre closer to the adjoining premises to the west, has been raised in the representations as an issue, bearing in mind the nature of commercial design activity undertaken in the adjoining building whose only windows look onto the site. Whilst it is difficult to assess exactly the impact of the proposed development in terms of loss of natural daylight to those premises it must be remembered that the proposed site lies to the east of those premises and therefore any adverse impact is likely only to be experienced in the mornings. Bearing in mind the proposed building is only some 1 metre closer to the boundary and one floor higher, I do not believe that a refusal on the basis of adverse impact on those premises from the proposed redevelopment could be sustained.

Environment Agency has advised that the site is within a flood risk area, but no flood risk assessment or details of levels and escape route in the event of flood have been provided by the applicants. Such information has been requested but is not available at the time. The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore be satisfied that the risk of flooding of the premises has been properly assessed or that adequate measures can be put in place to protect life and property in the event that a flood does occur. Insufficient information has therefore been provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to conclude that the requirements of UDP Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) have been properly addressed.

The question of site notices and publicity for the applications has been raised in the representations and I would confirm that in addition to the normal press advertisement and neighbour notification, a notice was placed on site on 5 February. Following representations that the notice was no longer on site, a replacement was posted on the 17 February, and when it was again indicated on the following day that the site notice was not in place, a further replacement was posted on 18 February. The applicants agent was notified and it is understood that a local firm of engineers which had prepared one of the reports submitted with the application, was instructed to ensure that the notice was kept in place. I am satisfied that the Local Planning Authority has taken all reasonable steps required by statute and regulation to publicise the applications.

The views of the Highways Engineer are yet to be received, but bearing in mind the location within the town centre, a development without dedicated car parking would not contravene UDP or sustainable transport policies.

The need for the development is not an issue for the Local Planning Authority - the application must be determined on its merits. The site lies outside the area the subject of the Cowes ground stability study and the Building Control Officer is satisfied that foundations appropriate to the ground conditions and type of development proposed can be designed. The question of structural damage to adjoining premises is a matter between the land owners concerned, and not the Local Planning Authority. Questions of loss of view, developer profit and reasons behind nature of development proposed are not matters for the Local Planning Authority to consider in determination of the application.

LBC/21224C/P162/03

The principle issue in determining this application is whether the demolition of the remaining part of the building, as applied for, is justifiable, bearing in mind the presumption of national and local policy that listed buildings should be retained.

Clearly, the question of danger from buildings, even listed building, has to be addressed, but complete demolition is not always the most appropriate response. It is recognised that the best way to keep historic buildings in good repair is to ensure that they remain in economic use. In this case, it appears that although in an economic use, alterations has been undertaken over many years, which may have affected the integrity of the structure. Reports submitted by the applicants engineering advisors outline the defects in the building and conclude that demolition is the only reasonable way forward.

These reports have been examined by the Council's Building Control Officer and Conservation Officer. The former does not believe that the demolition of the structure was inevitable although, bearing in mind the nature of redevelopment proposed rebuilding would have been the most appropriate course of action. He does however agree with the applicants engineers that the integrity of the structure that remains has been adversely affected and that a "staged demolition" approach is probably the only practical safe solution. The latter concludes that the reports do little more than provide justification statements for the unauthorised taking down of most of the listed structure and serve little purpose in assessing whether the building could have been refurbished and retained in order to continue its economic use.

UDP policy B4 indicates that the following points must be addressed when demolition of a listed building is being considered:

a) The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived form its continued use;

b) The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and

c) The merits of alternative proposals for the site.

The policy continues:

"Any planning permission will be conditional upon the signing of a contract for ensuring appropriate redevelopment, prior to the demolition of the building. "

In this case, no information regarding the cost of repair and maintenance in relation to the continued use have been submitted, and clearly, with the demolition of a large part of the structure, inadequate efforts have been made to retain the building in its current use. Although this demolition has taken place, the principles of policy B4 still need to be applied to the application for demolition of the remaining part of the listed building. No such information has been submitted and therefore the proposal fails these two criteria within policy B4.

The third criterion relates to the merits of the alternative proposals for the site. If Members agree with my recommendation regarding application TCP/21224B/P161/03 for the redevelopment of the site, then it is clear that the alternative proposals now put forward for this site, on their merits are unacceptable. The proposals therefore fail this part of policy B4 as well.

In order to be satisfied that demolition of a listed building can proceed, a contract for ensuring appropriate redevelopment must be signed prior to the demolition of the building. Whilst this could be covered by a condition on any consent, in my view it would be inappropriate in this instance. There is no approved redevelopment scheme and therefore in my opinion, no justification for the demolition of the remainder of the listed building.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to refuse planning permission and listed building consent, consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties has been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed, it is considered that the recommendation to refuse is proportional to the legitimate aim of Listed Building and Conservation Area legislation and the Council's Unitary Development Plan and is in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal to redevelop the site in the manner proposed is contrary to policies D1, D2, B6, P5 and G6 of the Isle of Wight Council's Unitary Development Plan and that the proposal to demolish the remaining part of the listed building, within the conservation area, is not justified and would contravene national legislation regarding such buildings and areas and policy B4 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

LBC/21224C/P162/03

       RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a major submission where there are a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a major application. The processing of this application has taken ten weeks to date. The processing of this application is within the thirteen week period for major submissions but beyond the eight week prescribed time limit due to need for consultations and the date on which the Development Control Committee meeting falls in the meeting cycle.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of land located to east of the Vineyard and originally part of grounds to former Eastmore House, now known as Port La Salle. Main body of site is roughly rectangular having area of approximately 0.2 hectares which slopes gently in northerly direction. Eastern and southern (roadside) boundaries of site are defined by natural growth with height in excess of 2 metres whilst northern boundary, with relatively new dwelling, is defined by close boarded fence approximately 1.5 metres high. The site is bounded to western side by existing access road to the Vineyard development with no direct access to main road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning history relating to former Eastmore House is quite extensive with large number of applications relating to conversion of the former school buildings or for residential development within the grounds. Most relevant of these concerns duplicate (twin track) applications submitted in March 1990 seeking outline approval for residential development of houses and apartments, with dry quay area and slipway. One of these applications became the subject of an appeal against the failure of the former Borough Council to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period. Following consideration of a report on the matter, the former Borough Council Planning Committee resolved that, had they been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused for reasons of policy, impact in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast and matters relating to highway considerations. The appeal was determined by way of a local inquiry and was allowed, the Inspector's decision letter was dated 21 November 1991.

The "twin track" duplicate application was approved in July 1992. The decision notice was accompanied by a plan which identified an area adjacent the eastern boundary of the site, close to the foreshore, where no development was to take place, in line with the Inspector's recommendations. The approval was subject to a condition in this respect as follows:

"No development of flats or houses permitted by this approval, or other buildings, shall take place within the area hatched green on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice."

Both the permission granted on appeal and the planning approval granted by the former Borough Council were subject of conditions requiring that the means of access was constructed in accordance with the approved plans prior to any building being occupied.

A subsequent application for approval of reserved matters for 13 houses and four semi-detached bungalows, creation of boat basin, quay and slipway, car parking, access road and landscaping was approved in June 1994. A number of subsequent applications have also been approved for residential development within the grounds of the former Eastmore House, now known as Port La Salle.

TCP/23182/E – P/00517/01 – An application for a block of eight maisonettes, five bungalows, access road and parking area was refused in June 2002, contrary to Officer’s recommendation. Members will recall that application was refused on grounds that, whilst recognising an identified need for sheltered accommodation in the West Wight area, it was considered that this could be accommodated elsewhere and that there was inadequate justification for additional residential development outside the development envelope defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, contrary to the policies contained therein. In addition, reasons related to the detrimental impact of the development on the quality of the environment and landscape and also that development of the site, outside the development envelope was contrary to the aims of PPG3 to create sustainable development.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Current submission is virtually identical to previous application and seeks consent for residential development of eight maisonettes and five bungalows with access road and parking area. In addition, proposal involves alterations to an existing building to provide meeting room and visitor accommodation. Previous scheme involved provision of amenity block in a separate building.

Plans which accompanied current submission show two storey terraced block of eight maisonettes located at southern end of site with car parking adjacent southern (roadside) boundary of site. Each of maisonettes would provide accommodation comprising lounge/dining room, kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms. The five bungalows would be located to north of and at lower level to block of maisonettes with further car parking adjacent northern boundary of site. Each of the bungalows would provide similar accommodation to the maisonettes.

Application site as defined on submitted plans also includes the road network within the Port La Salle development and applicants agent indicates in letter providing information in support of proposal which accompanies application that the proposed development would also enable problems of drainage and local road system to be dealt with, thereby ensuring that the whole development of Port La Salle will be completed to a satisfactory standard.

In attempting to address the reasons for refusal of the previous application, applicants agent expresses the view in the letter that it is clear that sequentially this site must be considered positively and indicates that any development of sheltered housing must be sustainable and requires a minimum of thirty units to provide the necessary support such as care and warden supervision. He advises that the extension to the Vineyard proposed would make the whole site sustainable and would enable the refurbishment of the existing development including improvements to landscaping, car parking, lighting and boundary treatment. He makes reference to the bus station site in Freshwater and suggests that this will be subject to a separate application for commercial use and cannot therefore be considered. He also suggests that there is a serious housing need for sheltered accommodation of over 100 units per year.

In a letter submitted subsequent to the application, applicant’s agent provides additional information to further support argument that there is an identified need for sheltered accommodation in this area. They again suggest that there is a recognised need for the provision of 100 such units per year and that there has been little or no development of this type over the last twelve years. They have carried out a survey of three local estate agents who advise that there is a demand for sheltered accommodation of the type proposed. One estate agent has indicated that he believes the proposed units could be sold within one year.

The previous application was accompanied by a planning brief which is attached to this report as Appendix A. Information contained in the planning brief includes an outline of the financial situation regarding the Vineyard development and difficulties presently experienced with the management and upkeep of the site. In addition, the brief provides details of how the proposed development would assist in resolving these difficulties. In respect of the current submission, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that the financial package described in the previous application remains largely unchanged. Differences include the provision of the meeting room within an existing building, rather than a separate amenity block as previously proposed. In addition, he confirms that money is being provided to the existing Vineyard to upgrade the site and to assist in the purchase of the freehold by existing and new residents.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing sets out the Government’s policies and provides guidance on a range of issues relating to the provision of housing. In particular, it emphasises that the Government is committed to promoting more sustainable patterns of development and minimising the amount of green field land being taken for development. This can be achieved by employing a range of measures, including concentrating most additional housing development within urban areas and making more efficient use of land by maximising the reuse of existing buildings. The Guidance Note indicates that national target is that by 2008 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings.

The Guidance Note advises that in identifying sites to be allocated for housing in Local Plans and UDPs, Local Authorities should follow a search sequence, starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the Urban Capacity Study, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes of good public transport. Furthermore, the Guidance Note advises that in identifying sites Local Planning Authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against criteria which include the availability of previously developed sites, their location and accessibility, capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, ability to build communities and physical and environmental constraints on development of land.

The site lies outside development envelope boundary for Yarmouth and is within an area designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent the Heritage Coast. The site forms part of a larger area allocated in Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as a housing development site. The allocation is derived from the previous planning approvals for the area in question. Relevant policies are considered to be:

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

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

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

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements.

D1 – Standards of Design.

D2 – Standards for Development Within the Site.

H3 – Allocation of Residential Development Sites.

H9 – Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries.

H15 – Locally Affordable Housing as Rural Exceptions.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

AONB Planning and Information Officer raises no objection to current scheme and indicates that, although site is within the AONB, it is classified under the Landscape Character Assessment as settlement and, as such, is appropriate for this development. She considers that the details of the design and appearance of the proposed buildings, as detailed on the submitted plans, address their comments in respect of the original application regarding the need for good design appropriate to the area.

Consultations have been carried out with the Housing Initiatives Officer in respect of the current submission who indicates that the Housing Needs Survey, published in 2002, shows that there is a demand for sheltered units in the West Wight area. He advises that there are currently six clients registered and waiting for such accommodation in this area. Furthermore, he advises that the Housing Needs Survey gives the likely level of demand for housing given a statistical return from 11,000 people who completed the survey. The Housing Officer indicated in respect of the previous submission that there were fifty people seeking sheltered housing in the West Wight area and that this demand was unlikely to be met from existing sheltered housing resources. I am advised that this information was based on an analysis of the figures contained in the Housing Needs Survey and is not a specific request for accommodation.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Shalfleet Parish Council remains of the view that this piece of land is outside the development envelope and that it was agreed as a green buffer between the existing development and the next dwelling. Furthermore, they consider that the need for further such housing on the site is not proven.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters received from local residents and one from Port La Salle Management Limited, the latter accompanied by a petition containing 32 signatures, in support of proposal raising the following issues:

Adequate parking areas should be constructed so no parking is necessary along main entrance road.

One resident suggests one way in – out road system – existing development generates large volume of vehicle movements.

Site is unmanaged, overgrown with brambles and is used for tipping rubbish and is the source of flooding problems for properties below it.

Area part of intended building land and is not part of green belt land – proposal is infill and would make good use of land to benefit of all 67 potential dwellings on the Port La Salle development.

Surface and spring water flows unchecked downhill onto neighbouring gardens – development would result in water being properly fed into new drainage system.

Detailed plans already in place for dealing effectively with the surface water drainage from site and access roads below it – development would make provision for these improvements.

Management of the Vineyard and its extension together would be financially beneficial to residents.

One letter received from resident of the Vineyard who, whilst raising no objection, expresses concern regarding potential effect of meeting room which he considers could result in serious loss of privacy and implications for security. He indicates that he would be in favour of the meeting room providing a permanent and effective screen was constructed between the building and his property.

The Vineyard Residents Association indicate that previous applicant, Parchment Housing, made undertakings in connection with the proposed development. However, they understand that the housing group are no longer involved and that the interested parties have changed together with all the promises with them. The residents requested delay in finalizing this matter to give them time to assess the situation and, consequently, the degree of support which they feel that they could give the application.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether development is acceptable in principle and whether scale and design of development is in keeping with its surroundings.

During consideration of the previous application, a number of meetings were held with applicants agent and consultations were carried out with the Policy Section (Development Plan), the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer and Housing Officer. Discussions with applicant’s agent focused on five main areas:

       The policy issues referred to in the report.

Comments of the Planning Inspector in determining the earlier appeal against refusal of planning permission on a larger area which included the application site.

The area of land on the eastern side of the Port La Salle development which was to remain undeveloped.

The allocation of the site as a housing development site on the UDP.

The planning history of the site.

Following the meeting, a letter was received from Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants, addressing in more detail the issues raised at the meeting.

I consider that, in determining whether the proposal is acceptable in principle, it is necessary to have regard for the complex planning history of the site and, in particular, the policies contained in the current development plan. The most relevant planning history in respect of this site was considered to be the application for outline planning permission granted on appeal in November 1991. Applicants agent disputed this point and considered that the Outline Planning Permission granted on 31 July 1992 was the relevant planning history. The view was subsequently expressed by the authority, in a letter to Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants, that both consents were considered to be material considerations in determining the planning application, although they carry different weight.

In determining the appeal in 1991, the Inspector considered the main issue in the case to be the likely effect the proposals would have on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the aims of the Council's planning policies and the planning history of the site. The Inspector acknowledged that the site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coastline and was shown on the Rural Areas Local Plan to be within the countryside for the purposes of interpreting the Local Plan and Replacement Structure Plan. In determining the appeal, he carried out an inspection of the area, including observing the site and its surroundings from the sea.

The Inspector acknowledged that the western part of the appeal site would be largely screened by a knoll and trees. However, he was of the opinion that this would not reduce the densely built appearance of the proposed development when viewed from the sea. In this respect, he concluded as follows:

"Therefore, due to the prominence of the eastern part of the site, I believe that the development which is proposed would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area.

Whereas some of the houses on the eastern part of the site would occupy land which could be used for a car park, I consider that the permanent buildings would be far more intrusive than the occasional cars which would be parked there, despite the degree of assimilation of the houses into the hillside which is intended. Therefore, although I recognise that there are planning permissions on the site which would enable development to be carried out, I do not accept that this outweighs the harm which I consider would be caused by building the flats and the houses east of the quay. In addition, not only would the construction of the flats and the houses be contrary to the aim of development plan policies to limit new housing to land within village envelopes or as otherwise provided for in the structure or Local Plans but, because of the visual effects of the eastern part of the scheme, I believe it would be incompatible with the AONB policy to avoid significantly prejudicing the landscape."

Whilst the Inspector allowed the appeal, he gave clear indications that development east of the quay was unacceptable by reason of its visual impact and the harm that would result to the character of the area. This is clear from the comments contained in his summing up in which he stated:

"..... I do not intend to grant permission for the construction of the residential development east of the quay."

He acknowledged that the application was in outline and that the submitted plan was for illustrative purposes only. However, he noted that the amended application included a reduction in the number and the location of residential units as shown on the plan and, therefore, considered the plan to be a material consideration to the decision.

The impact of the development was also taken into account when considering the conditions suggested by the Authority which included one seeking to limit the height of the buildings to not more than two storeys. Whilst he agreed that it was desirable to limit the height of the buildings, he considered that this could be addressed under the design and external appearance aspect of the reserved matters.

Land on the eastern side of the Port La Salle development falls gently between Bouldnor Road and the foreshore to the north. Consequently, the application site is at, and rises to a higher level than the area adjacent the foreshore and to the east of the quay referred to by the Inspector. Therefore, development on the application site would clearly be as visible if not more prominent than the area adjacent the foreshore, particularly when viewed from the sea. This is evident from photographic evidence submitted in respect of the appeal from which the two storey block within the Vineyard, immediately west of the application site, is clearly visible on the high ground adjacent Bouldnor Road. However, in view of the comments of the AONB Officer, I do not consider that refusal of the application on grounds of the physical impact of the development in the landscape would be sustainable.

Whilst the site is allocated as a housing development site in the UDP, it is clearly outside the development envelope for Yarmouth where further development would conflict with the aims of the plan, other than those exceptions specified in other policies. In this instance, it is clear that the site has been allocated solely on the basis of the planning history of the area and existing commitments. In terms of the previous permission granted for the site, and particularly the original outline, the current application site formed part of a more comprehensive scheme and I do not consider that the allocation is, by itself, sufficient to justify approval of the current application. Of particular relevance, the site appears in Appendix A "Housing Land Availability" of the UDP along with other sites under an explanatory note which states as follows:

"It is considered that the following allocations, which are based on existing commitments, may not be considered appropriate for renewal if the developments are not completed under existing approvals."

Furthermore, it should be noted that the outline application, whilst accompanied by plans which were illustrative purposes only, did not propose development within the area of land immediately to the east of the Vineyard.

I consider that the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" is relevant to the current proposal. In particular, with regard to sites allocated for housing, the PPG offers the following guidance:

"Where the planning application relates to development of a green field site allocated for housing in an adopted Local Plan or UDP, it should be assessed, and a decision made on the application, in the light of the policies set out in this guidance."

In accordance with the guidance in the PPG, development of sites for housing purposes should follow a sequential approach starting with the reuse of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by an urban housing capacity study, then urban extensions and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors. In doing so, it is necessary to identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirements as a result of the Regional Planning Guidance and strategic planning processes and the Authority will need to consider all land in its area. On the basis of the sequential approach, it is necessary to ensure that previously developed sites or buildings for reuse or conversion are developed before green field sites.

On the question of policy, the site is clearly outside the settlement of Yarmouth as defined by the development envelope on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I remain of the opinion that development of the site for residential purposes, without any justification, would be contrary to the policies of the Plan which seek to resist further development in the countryside. Whilst site forms part of larger area which is shown on Unitary Development Plan to be allocated as a housing development site, as previously mentioned in this report, the allocation was based on an existing commitment which may not be considered appropriate for renewal if the development is not completed under existing approvals. Therefore, I do not consider that this allocation by itself provides sufficient justification to allow development of the site. However, applicants agent has indicated that development would form an extension to the existing sheltered housing site known as the Vineyard. In addition, in the previous submission he drew attention to the comments contained in the Housing Strategy and Needs report and expressed the opinion that this clearly encourages the provision of developments for the care of the elderly within the community.

The previous submission was accompanied by information in support of proposal outlining in the current financial situation with regard to the Vineyard development. The information highlighted the maintenance work required and the cost of these works together with the level of potential debt which cannot be met by the current residents. It was suggested that the proposed development would enable these costs to be met and would make the overall development more sustainable. It was also suggested that the development will provide the necessary funding for the existing estate roads to be finished to an acceptable standard. Whilst it could be argued that the provision of sheltered housing could be met on another site, possibly within the defined settlement, it is considered that this proposal is directly linked with and forms extension to the existing Vineyard development, thereby dictating location for the provision of the additional units.

In terms of the design of the development, original submission indicated that buildings would be of height, scale and mass similar to the existing Vineyard development. The most significant difference in the character of the buildings was the appearance and design of the two storey elements. Whilst the proposed two storey building did not reflect the appearance and character of the original Vineyard development, it was not considered that, having regard to the differing styles of properties within the general locality, the design of the proposed development would be out of keeping with the area in general. However, having regard to location of site within an area designated as an AONB, and location of two storey element on highest and most prominent part of site, the design of the building was considered to be somewhat bland. Following negotiations with applicant’s agent, revised plans were submitted showing a building of superior design with interesting features to fenestration of building and which would make positive contribution to the area. The same design is proposed in the current submission.

With regard to issues raised in representations in respect of the drainage system and condition of the existing estate roads, it is understood that this development will facilitate improvements to the estate roads and drainage system. Furthermore, I consider that it would be reasonable to require developer to carry out improvements to the estate road between its junction with the main road and the access road to the development. In addition, application site as defined on current submission includes roads within the Port La Salle development and applicants agent indicates in the letter which accompanies the submission that they would be in agreement to permission being subject to a condition requiring all roads and drainage to be dealt with in a phased manner to ensure that the majority of the work would be completed prior to the occupation of the first unit on the proposed development.

Applicant’s agent has confirmed that proposed meeting room is to be provided for use by residents of the Vineyard and in connection with the day to day running and management of the site and not for use by the general public. Therefore, I do not consider that provision of this facility poses any security threat to existing or proposed residents of the site. It is understood that the area immediately to the north of the building to contain the meeting room forms part of the communal grounds for use by residents of the site. Nevertheless, applicant’s agent has indicated that they would be willing to provide obscure glazing to the windows in the northern elevation of the meeting room and I am satisfied that this should safeguard against any potential conflict between use of this facility and the occupation of the adjacent units.

This proposal clearly raises a number of complex policy issues and, having regard to location of the site outside the defined settlement and development boundary, would appear to be contrary to policy. However, it is necessary to have regard for other material considerations detailed in this report, including the existing sheltered housing at the site, the location and need for the type of housing being provided and other benefits which may arise from the development, including the improvements to the roads and drainage on the Port La Salle development. Of particular relevance, the development proposed is to be provided to meet an identified need for a specific type of housing. Whilst it is accepted that such provision could be made elsewhere, ideally within a defined settlement, in this instance, the proposal involves an extension to an existing well established sheltered housing site and applicant’s agent argues that additional units are required to maintain the financial viability of the site.

Having regard to these factors, I remain of the opinion that, on balance, the proposal is acceptable and that the circumstances associated with the development are sufficient to justify approval of the application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I consider that, notwithstanding the decision to refuse the previous application and whilst the site is outside the defined development boundary, the development would meet an identified housing need as an extension to an existing sheltered housing site which I consider provides sufficient justification for the approval of the application. Therefore, on balance, I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member as he is not prepared to agree to application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. The processing of this application has taken 26 weeks to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed time limits due to negotiations with applicant's agent regarding the scale, mass, design and general appearance of the building. Revised plans re-advertised on 17 January 2003.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to corner site at junction of the Broadway and Granville Road and was previously occupied by building providing two storey accommodation comprising retail premises at ground floor with some accommodation partially within roof space. Building which previously occupied the site has now been demolished.

Site is bounded to east by the Broadway, to north by Granville Road and to west by unmade track providing access to rear of adjacent properties. Property immediately to south of site forms part of terrace of dwellings fronting the Broadway with garden area to side, between building and application site. Area is predominantly residential in character comprising a mix of building types and styles providing a range of accommodation, including flats.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Original submission sought planning permission for a three storey building to form a block of four flats and four maisonettes with vehicular access and parking area to west, fronting onto and accessed from Granville Road. Proposal involved provision of four one bedroom flats at ground floor level with four two bedroom maisonettes on upper floors with accommodation at second floor level provided within roof space.

Following negotiations with applicant's agent, revised plans have been submitted reducing the total number of units within the building to six comprising three one bedroom flats and three two bedroom maisonettes. Eastern half of building would provide three storey accommodation with rooms at second floor level within the roof space whilst western half of building would provide two storey accommodation with rooms at first floor level encroaching slightly into roof space. Each of the flats would provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, bathroom/W.C. and one bedroom whilst maisonettes would each provide accommodation comprising lounge, kitchen, bathroom/W.C. and two bedrooms. Area immediately to west of property would provide parking for four vehicles immediately adjacent pavement area with bin store, secure bike store and small amenity space for four of the units.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within settlement of Totland and development boundary as defined on Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Relevant policies of the Plan are considered to be as follows:

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

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

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

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site.

H4 - Unallocated Residential Development to be Restricted to Defined Settlements.

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Service advise that proposal is satisfactory.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Parish Council raised no objection in principle to original submission but indicated that the Councillors would like to see development scaled down to three flats and three maisonettes. As a result of further consultations in respect of revised plans, Totland Parish Council indicated that it had no comments to make.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter received from owner of adjacent property, accompanied by petition containing 35 signatures, objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Neighbouring property owner was previously advised that Tackle Box was a Grade II Listed Building therefore believing it could not be knocked down or altered in any way or form.

Overlooking and loss of privacy.

Whilst neighbouring resident indicates that he objects to building altogether, people in area have expressed view that they would not object to a two storey building of the same height and dimension as the existing.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether redevelopment of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and whether the proposed building, by reason of its size, scale, mass and design would detract from the character of the area and amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers.

Having regard to previously developed nature of this site, I consider that proposal represents redevelopment of a brownfield site within the defined settlement and development boundary and proposal therefore complies with guidance contained in PPG3 - Housing which encourages development of such sites in advance of greenfield sites. Therefore, I consider that redevelopment of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle.

Original submission involved building of quite substantial proportions, particularly when compared with original building which stood on site which was of relatively low level. Furthermore, original proposal would have resulted in two storey elevation, containing a number of windows serving accommodation, including kitchen dining rooms, running whole length of side garden to adjacent property. It was considered that such a proposal would have an excessive and over dominant impact on that property as well as resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy.

Revised proposal involves a building of reduced proportions. In particular, western half of building provides only two storey accommodation with rooms at first floor level encroaching into roof space with an eaves level below head of the first floor windows. The number of windows in the southern elevation serving accommodation to the upper floors has been reduced significantly and submitted plans indicate that lower part of those windows to be retained would be finished in obscure glazing. Therefore, I am satisfied that these measures, together with any appropriate boundary treatment along the southern boundary of the site with the adjacent property, would be sufficient to overcome any objection to the proposal on grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy. Furthermore, I do not consider that proposal as detailed on revised plans would have an excessive impact on the neighbouring property or that refusal on grounds of over dominance would be justified.

Site is located in an area characterised by a mix of building styles employing a range of materials in their construction. Proposed building incorporates number of design features present in the building on the opposite corner of the Broadway and Granville Road. Properties on eastern side of the Broadway, immediately adjacent junction with Granville Rise, are of substantial proportions providing three storey accommodation. Having regard to these factors, I do not consider that proposal would be out of keeping or would detract from the character and amenities of the locality.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set our in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the revised proposal represents an acceptable form of development which would not be out of keeping or detract from the character of the locality or amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

       RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Councillor has received a number of enquires from adjacent property owners raising concerns regarding this proposal and, having visited the office and been advised of the issues involved expressed a wish for the application to be considered by Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application and the processing of this application has taken four and a half weeks to date.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a pair of semi-detached two storey houses nearing completion located on a housing development of 203 units currently taking place between Mountbatten Drive and Kitbridge Road. The development is in a mixture of mainly detached and semi-detached houses and involves an access off the end of Mountbatten Drive which eventually will link through to the end of Sylvan Drive to the north east. The southern part of the overall development site abuts the rear boundaries of properties which front Westmill Road.

In detail plots 170 and 171 have a west east aspect with the side elevation of plot 171 facing in the main the rear garden of number 10 Westmill Road with a small element facing 12 Westmill Road. The overall curtilage of the application abuts in part or in whole properties 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Westmill Road. Properties 6, 8 and 10 Westmill Road are two storey semi-detached properties whilst 12 and 14 are singe storey detached properties. The average rear garden depth from rear elevation to rear boundary of number 10 Westmill Road is approximately 15 metres whilst the rear elevation to rear boundary garden depth of number 12 is approximately 11 metres. The elevation which faces the rear of properties in Westmill Road contains three windows two first floor and one ground floor window. All three windows are 600 mm in width with the first floor windows serving a landing and bathroom and a ground floor window serving a hall. The bathroom window contains obscure glazing in its lower half with the remaining windows being clear glazed. The bathroom windows has a depth of approximately 800 mm with other windows have a depth of approximately 1000 mm.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In October 2000 approval of reserved matters granted for 203 houses, garages and parking areas and associated access roads including link road between Mountbatten Road and Sylvan Drive. That consent was subject of a number of conditions most relevant of which is quoted as follows:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and reenacting that order with or without modification no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed within the south facing elevations of plots 138, 171, 172, 179 and east facing elevation of plot 128.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining properties."

For information the house type 87a which is the semi-detached houses the subject of the current application indicated three windows on the side elevation serving landing and bathroom at first floor and hall on the ground floor a fact which has been confirmed by a site inspection. Therefore these windows would be deemed to be those which were expressly authorised by this permission and therefore would not be additional windows under the condition.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Retrospective consent is sought for the retention of these semi-detached properties on plots 170 and 171 which have been positioned 1.2 metres further to the west than indicated on the overall approved plan. Pair has also been moved further to the north off the adjoining rear boundary to properties in Westmill Road by approximately 0.5 metre resulting in a total distance of approximately 2 metres. The reason that this particular pair has been moved in this direction relates to an amendment to the turning head serving both this plot and other plots required by the Highway Engineer. This amendment also resulted in plots 167-169 inclusive being moved approximately 1.5 metres further to the east however this was dealt with as an amendment bearing in mind it had no impact on existing properties.

In terms of height and floor levels, these are slightly higher than the ground level within the garden areas of properties 10 and 12 Westmill Road and therefore the existing 1.5 metre high panel fence with trellis does not screen any outlook from the ground floor hall window that faces the direction of these existing properties. In height terms the plan indicates an 8 metre height between the ground level and the top of the apex of the gabled roof.

In the revised position the minimum distance off the property number 10 Westmill Road is now 16.6 metres increasing to a maximum of 17 metres. In terms of the property number 12 Westmill Road distance is 12.5 metres. (All these distances have been scaled off the plan as opposed to measured on site.)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The adjoining development site on which these two plots stand forms part of a major area of allocated residential land within the development envelope boundary. Detailed policies which apply in this case is policy D1 (Standards of Design).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

At time of preparing report two letters of objection from neighbouring properties have been received, one of which covers the main issues of concern and is quoted as follows:

 " 1. The three windows in the gable end of plot 171 are casement type we feel                 they should be changed to fix bottom pane with fan light preferably glazed                 with obscure glass.

2.    The ground level appears to be some 600-800 mm higher than our garden               concerned how this land is to be drained and

 3.    Finally we were led to believe that the boundary adjoining us would be            screened with close boarded fence?"

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Whilst recognising the concern caused by developers re-siting the properties to accommodate highway requirements without obtaining formal consent, this does not absolve the planning authority's duty to consider the application on its merits. The fact that the works have taken place prior to consent is not a reason for refusal.

The material considerations in this case and whether or not the resiting has resulted in a change in the environmental impact on adjoining properties which would warrant either a refusal or the imposition of conditions. Members will note from the measurements that the relocation, although too great to be treated as an amendment, is in itself relatively minor and I would conclude that the reposition has not changed the fundamental relationship between the new dwellings and the existing dwellings. Therefore I do not consider the relocation issue provides a reason for refusal on environmental impact issues.

With regard to the issue of the windows, the originally approved plans indicated three small windows (two at first floor one at ground floor) and in this regard the developer has not introduced any additional or enlarged windows. The above-mentioned condition was not aimed at controlling these particular windows but any additional windows to bedrooms for instance which occupier may wish to introduce. Therefore whilst noting the concerns of the neighbouring property owners in respect of fixed bottom panes or introducing obscure glazing I am of the view that it would be unreasonable now to introduce such a condition. Should conditions be applied requiring alterations to the windows then the applicants would have the right of appeal, which would be difficult to resist.

Finally I note the concern relating to ground levels and floor levels and in this regard I would suggest that the imposition of a condition requiring submission of details of finished ground levels where they abut the rear boundaries of numbers 6, 8 10, 12 and 14 Westmill Road with such details indicating how ground drainage is to be dealt with would be reasonable.