(b)       TCP/17579/D, E and F   George Jenkins Transport Limited against refusal of planning permission for the formation of a trailer and lorry park, refusal for a temporary contractors yard and Enforcement Notice relating to the laying down of additional hardcore and the formation of a trailer and lorry park with associated storage at land east of Sandown Airport, Newport Road, Sandown.

           Officer Recommendation:       Approval (both planning applications)

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (both planning applications) and Enforcement action - 3 August 2001

           Appeal Decisions:                    Dismissed - 22 October 2002.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector: 

           ∙          The effect of the respective uses upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and whether any harm would be outweighed by the employment and economic benefits and the need for a site outside the built up area.

           •          The effect of each use upon the living conditions of the residents of Sandown.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           ∙          There is no doubt that the appeal site is in the countryside for both policy purposes and as a matter of fact.

           •          The unauthorised use has extended commercial development into what was previously unspoilt countryside.

           •          From the nearby public footpaths, the trailer and lorry park are seen as an intrusion by commercial development into the surrounding rural area and the contractors yard represents more of an intrusion and would cause even greater harm.

           •          It would take many years for the proposed landscaping to provide a meaningful screen and screening is not a good reason for allowing the appeals.

           •          To justify granting approval for development which causes substantial harm to the countryside, alternatives should first be properly explored and there is no evidence that this has been done. 

           •          There is no reason in principle why a trailer and lorry park should not be in an industrial area with good road access that avoids congested central areas and residential areas.

           •          A haulage company serves the economy generally, both rural and urban areas alike, and lends little support to the lorry and trailer park being of benefit to the rural economy for the purposes of UDP policies G5 and E8.

           •          The use of the land as a contractors yard is likely to turn into a repository for surplus equipment and materials, becoming unsightly and an even greater intrusion into the countryside.

           •          There is very little economic or employment benefit to balance against the serious harm to the countryside if the contractors yard were to be allowed.

           •          The hours of operation for the use of the land for trailer and lorry parking are dictated by the availability of space on the ferries to the mainland and early morning and late evening lorry and trailer movements would be likely to increase.

           •          Movement of heavy trucks and trailer units causing considerable noise and vibration and would disturb the occupants of Sandown to an unacceptable degree during the early hours of the morning and late at night.

           •          The use of the land as a contractors depot would be considerably further away from Sandown than the lorry and trailer park and hours of operation could be restricted to the normal working day and would not harm the neighbours living conditions.

           •          The development in all three appeals is contrary to UDP policies and no argument was out forward to warrant an exception to these policies.

           •          Any benefit of allowing the appeals would be heavily outweighed by the serious harm caused to the countryside.

Application for costs by appellant against Isle of Wight Council:

           Refused - 22 October 2002

           Appellants Application:

           •          The application was made in respect of the appeal against the refusal of planning permission relating to the use of the land as a lorry and trailer park.

           •          Members did not request an acoustic report and did not consider whether conditions could overcome the objections.

           •          Members ignored the planning history of the site and its commercial use but proceeded with an objection on noise grounds.

           •          Just because the site was outside the development envelope was not a sufficient reason to refuse the application.

           Response by Isle of Wight Council:

           •          Before making a decision, Members had visited the site and had been presented with a further report and additional information covering the planning history, planning policies and all other matters which they needed to consider.

           •          Members had carefully considered all the evidence and decided the policy issue was paramount.

           Inspectors decision:

           •          Planning Authorities are not bound to adopt the advice of their Officers but are expected to show that they have reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to such advice.

           •          A decision must follow the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

           •          In this case, Members clearly felt that the considerations that supported the application did not justify an exception to the policies.

           •          In view of the clear policy objections it is understandable that Members did not ask for an acoustic report.

           •          No monitoring of the appeal site had been carried out by an Environmental Health Officer and Members could not be considered to have acted unreasonably in exercising their own judgement, after visiting the site, that there was a risk of disturbance to neighbours.

           •          The appellants did not commission an acoustic report and did not call an expert witness on noise matters.

           •          The decision to refuse the application was based on sound planning grounds and was substantiated at the inquiry.

           •          There was no unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council resulting in unnecessary expense to the appellants and an award of costs is not justified.

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

           (c)       TCP/24497                     Goodall Tyson Developments Limited against refusal for 2 detached houses with garages and formation of vehicular access, land adjacent 127 Wyatts Lane, Cowes.

           Officer Recommendation:       Refusal.

           Committee Decision:               Refusal (Part 1) - 21 January 2002.

           Appeal Decision:                      Dismissed - 1 November 2002.

           Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

           ∙          The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

           •          Whether or not the proposed development makes adequate provision for foul and surface water drainage.

           Conclusions of the Inspector:

           ∙          The site is in an open area and the proposed two dwellings would occupy almost the full width of the site.

           •          The proposal would appear cramped and out of keeping with the established, scattered pattern of buildings around it.

           •          The proposal would consolidate the development along this stretch of Wyatts Lane significantly reducing the open spacious character of the site and harming the semi-rural character of the area.

           •          The benefits of developing this site are outweighed by the harm which would be caused to the character of this part of Wyatts Lane.

           •          The proposed development would conflict with the objectives of UDP policies.

           •          In the absence of confirmation that the sewer has the capacity to deal with the foul sewage discharge from two additional dwellings it is uncertain whether the proposed development could be implemented without adversely affecting the existing drainage provision.

           •          The Inspector was not satisfied that the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage or that it could be carried out without adverse effect upon the drainage of existing properties in the surrounding area.

           •          Although not a determining factor in this appeal, the vehicular access to the proposed northern dwelling would have inadequate visibility which adds weight to the decision.

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