PAPER C1

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

1.        NEW APPEALS LODGED

           TCP/20396/F                              Mr S Sanders against refusal for construction of chicken hut, retention of pond, storage of 6 timber cords and hardstanding, land northeast of Rodgebrook Farm, Whitehouse Road, Newport.

           TCP/12442/K                              Mr and Mrs Beynon against refusal for the removal of agricultural occupancy condition on Greenfields, Merstone Lane, Merstone, Newport.

           TCP/25248                                 Mr B Button against refusal for extension at first floor level to enlarge accommodation at 36 Warwick Street, Ryde.

           TCP/20073/A                              Mr and Mrs T Warren against refusal for demolition of stables and hay store and the construction of a detached house with attached garage and stable block and formation of vehicular access at land adjacent Stockbridge Cottage, north side of Sley Lane, Whitwell, Ventnor

           TCP/24646/A                              Greenfield Homes Construction Limited against refusal for two pairs of semi-detached houses with parking, land rear of 23 Marlborough Road and south of Appley Farm, Marlborough Road, Ryde.

           TCP/24621                                 Mr S Cooper against non-determination of application for 6 flats, Land adjacent Lucknow, Princes Road, Freshwater.

           TCP/3551/C                               Westridge Estates Limited against refusal for demolition of existing building and construction of 5 detached houses; alterations to vehicular access and provision of parking area at The Crab Shack, Duver Road, Seaview.

2.        APPEALS WITHDRAWN

           LDC/24579                                 G & C Blake in respect of refusal of Lawful Development Certificate for continued use of premises for the preparation of fish and shellfish at Blake & Spencer, Esplanade, Ventnor. Enquiry to take place on 23 April 2003 has been cancelled.

                      (b)       TCP/1501/T                           Mr D Walser against refusal for monkey sanctuary and variation of agricultural occupancy condition at Five Acres Farm, Staplers Road, Newport.

           Officer Recommendation:              Approval.

           Committee Decision:                       Refusal - 14 May 2002.

           Appeal Decisions:                           Allowed - 10 February 2003.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

           •          The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

           •          The effect on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings in terms of noise and disturbance.

           •          The effect of the proposed variation of the agricultural occupancy condition on the character of the area.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          Appropriate rural tourism development is exceptionally permitted provided it requires a rural location and is of benefit to the rural economy.

           •          Tourism plays an important part in the Island’s economy.

           •          The proposed development would be likely to provide all year round interest and employment and benefit the local rural economy and help to extend the tourist season.

           •          A rural location is justified as it would not be right to locate such a use in a built up area because of potential nuisance from noise or smell.

           •          An appropriate landscaping scheme could reinforce visual screening and limit the impact of the buildings and structures and the visibility splay.

           •          The type, height and density of the built development as suggested would not represent over intensive development of the site.

           •          The proposed development would not be unacceptably detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would not conflict with UDP policies.

           •          The increase in levels of noise over the existing background noise levels would represent an increase of considerably less than 10dB difference indicated in PPG24 - Planning and Noise as the minimum likely to generate complaint.

           •          Considerable weight is to be attached to the fact that the appellant has agreed in writing to omit Siamang Gibbons from the list of species to be kept at the site and this could be controlled by condition as could other noise mitigation measures.

           •          The development would generate greater vehicular and pedestrian traffic and activity on the site than an agricultural use but some increases would generally result if rural tourism is to be encouraged.

           •          The proposed development would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings in terms of noise and disturbance and does not conflict with UDP policies.

           •          The proposed development, because of its specialised nature, would require a worker to be on hand at most times to provide essential care or deal with emergencies.

           •          The dwelling would be essential to the proposed use and the variation of the condition as proposed would be reasonable and necessary.

.....................................................................................................................................................

           (c)       TCP/24596                     Walter Gray & Co. Solicitors against refusal for alterations and change of use of lower ground floor and rear part of ground floor and first floor from offices to 2 flats at 24a High Street, Sandown.

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 22 March 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Allowed - 11 February 2003.

           Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          Whether the development will provide satisfactory accommodation for the future occupants.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          The objection to the proposal was concerned with the relationship of the proposed flats to the adjacent restaurant with the potential for noise and odour nuisance.

           •          It is not considered there would be significant problems from either noise or odours for the occupants of the proposed flats.

           •          The imposition of a sound proofing condition would be appropriate.

.....................................................................................................................................................

           (d)       TCP/7510/L                            Mrs M L Jones against refusal of outline for a pair of semi-detached houses, land adjacent 53 Grange Road, East Cowes.

           Officer Recommendation:               Refusal.

           Committee Decision:                      Refusal (Part 1) - 20 June 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                             Dismissed - 11 February 2003.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           •          Whether the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene.

           •          Whether the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           •          These corner gaps in the locality provide relief from the generally built up frontages.

           •          Developing this site with a pair of dwellings would result in a cramped development and be out of character with the pattern of development in the area.

           •          The felling of a tree protected by a preservation order would be harmful to the street scene.

           •          The proposed development would result in very little space being left for the occupants of the existing property and provide only a minimal amount of space for the occupants of the new dwellings.

           •          The proposed development of a pair of semi-detached houses would be over bearing and dominant when viewed from the adjoining occupants properties and would have a materially harmful effect on their living conditions.

....................................................................................................................................................

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members’ Room. Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 4572) at the Directorate of Corporate and Environment Services.