PAPER C2

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2002

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 - 19 NOVEMBER 2002

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/19-11-02/agenda

LIST OF PART III APPLICATION ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE - 19 NOVEMBER 2002

LIST OF PART IV APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 19 NOVEMBER 2002

(a)       TCP/3417D                10B Mount Pleasant Road                                        NEWPORT

(b)       TCP/4526C                35 High Street                                                           COWES

(c)       TCP/16040G              Land at 16-20 Church Road                                      SHANKLIN

(d)       TCP/22646                 Land north of Medina Way, east of Riverway            NEWPORT

                                               between Hurstake Road, The Quay 

(e)       Proposed Article 4(2) Direction, Seaview Conservation Area                       SEAVIEW

PART II

See joint report on LBC/4731D

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to Listed Grade II former hospital building which fronts Adelaide Grove located close to junction with York Avenue and which has return frontage onto Jubilee Recreation Ground. Building which is constructed of red brick under tiled roof comprises of central block which is single storey with attic accommodation characterised by four main dormers with wooden barge boards and large central gable. Projecting wings are of two storey height with crow-stepped end gables. There are five gabled dormers to each wing and verandah to ground floor on all sides. Later two storey addition to south is flat roofed.

Red brick wall to front of site is also Listed. Originally building constructed as Frank James Memorial Home in 1893, originally built for aged seamen, building only used for this purpose for six years. South wing added as extension in 1938. Property then became convalescent home and in 1903 a cottage hospital. In 1948 building taken over by National Health Service.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various approvals for small additions and demolition works in past.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

These applications seek both Listed Building and planning consent for proposal which involves demolition of 1938 extension back to earlier pitched roof extension, reinstatement of symmetry of building by construction of new extension on north end.

Proposal seeks to remove various outbuildings and minor parts of main building.

Briefly, proposal seeks to convert the existing building to comprise three houses in each wing, each of which uses original entrance point off terrace or cloister with central section converted to three flats sharing central staircase that is retained as common and landing. Entrance hall is enhanced by relocation of various plaques and mementos and are located in corridor of existing hospital. Extensions and conversion at north and south ends will provide two two-storey houses with access from drive at back of site.

Design philosophy adopted has been to leave all that is good and original wherever possible and where original window or door has been moved (almost all at basement level) reuse of existing brick and stone surrounds are intended. At ground floor level principal changes are rear of two west facing wings. Existing openings have been used as far as possible with insertion of small paned metal windows and doors reflect style on western end. New landings and external stairs with cast handrails provide access to gardens. At roof level, apart from work to north and south ends, only changes to insert heritage roof lights over new stairwell. It is envisaged that grounds in front of building will be maintained under a maintenance agreement on behalf of all properties together with some enhanced planting in due course.

In terms of new build, seven two-bedroomed units are proposed in a terrace along Hospital Road frontage. These are stepped up with slope and reflect style of original building. Stepped gable end feature is complimentary to main building with roof pitches and materials similar to main premises. It is intended to offer three of these units for affordable housing. New development will require considerable amount of land levelling.

Hospital Road is altered by way of construction of footpath on north side linked to widened areas on north and south sides to form traffic calming ramps and crossovers. Parking bays are located off-road with railings and boundary walls enclosing house frontages.

With regards parking, additional parking for six cars is shown off Adelaide Grove at north western corner of site using existing vehicle entrance. Rear of site (eastern boundary) shows parking for some ten vehicles with a service road linking through from York Avenue to Hospital Road. Seven parking spaces are shown for seven new residential units fronting Hospital Road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Members will be aware of requirements of circular guidance and provisions of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which require Local Authorities when considering applications for planning permission or Listed Building consent for works which affect a Listed Building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building. Additional advice is contained within PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment). There is statutory requirement also to have special regard to desirability of preserving any Listed Building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In terms of use, guidance advises that generally best way of securing upkeep of historic buildings and areas is to keep them in active use. In principle, aim should be to identify optimum viable use of property that is compatible with fabric interior and setting of the historic building. Relevant PPG also advises that many Listed Buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses.

The following policies of UDP are considered to be particularly relevant:

B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings).

B2 (Setting of Listed Buildings).

B3 (Change of Use of Listed Buildings).

B4 (Demolition of Listed Buildings).

G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages).

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development).

D1 (Standards of Design).

H14 (Locally Affordable Housing as an Element of Housing Schemes).

Text contained within paragraph 15.26 whilst relating principally to new retail development, advises that in dealing with applications involving loss of local community facilities including shops and pubs, the Council will expect evidence to be submitted to show that the business is not able to be commercially viable and all alternative means for its retention have been explored. This will require an assessment of the viability of alternative uses, the continued local support for such a community need, the presence of similar facilities in the locality and their accessibility to local people and the impact on other elements of the local economy, i.e. tourism.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

English Heritage have been consulted but at time of preparing report no reply had been received.

Highway Engineer advises that carriageway width along Hospital Road is too narrow for two vehicles to comfortably pass each other and leaves insufficient manoeuvring space to access driveway. Plans also indicate excessive traffic calming measures and concern is expressed over enforcement of proposed one-way traffic flow from York Avenue onto Hospital Road.

Environmental Health Officer recommends condition relating to contamination report being carried out should consent be granted.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

East Cowes Town Council raise no objection to application, however, they advise that they will be monitoring the plans put forward by North Medina Community Development Trust in coming months.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Fourteen letters have been received objecting to proposal. Objections can be summarised as follows:

Alterations have adverse impact on the character and setting of Listed Building.

Loss of community facility which should be kept available for local community and for which it was originally intended.

Increased residential activity on site and resultant increase in vehicular traffic in locality.

Impact on trees.

Inappropriate use of Listed Building and doubt is cast over housing meeting local needs.

Original buildings should remain intact to preserve its character and setting.

East Cowes group of the Isle of Wight Society support proposal in principle, however, they suggest minor amendments relating to end elevations of proposed dwellings and access and parking arrangements.

Governors of East Cowes Primary School raise concern given that Hospital Road has been designated a safe route to school and many children and adults use this road as their main access to the school and to Jubilee Recreation Ground. Increase in traffic will lessen effectiveness of safe route.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations are appropriateness of alternative use of building in policy terms, impact on character and setting of Listed Building in respect of demolition and reinstatement works together with the construction of the seven new dwellings. Issue of affordable housing also needs to be addressed.

In terms of principle there is no Unitary Development Plan policy which would preclude against loss of hospital facility. In general, such policies seek to ensure provision of social, community, health and educational facilities in order to meet need created by new residential development. As explained by applicant in following paragraph hospital facility is no longer required following re-organisation of health care provision.

By way of explanation applicant (NHS Trust) advise that at the end of July 2002 existing patients were relocated to modernised and refurbished wing of existing Newcroft building at St Mary's Hospital. Frank James Hospital is therefore surplus to requirements of Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust and under NHS disposal criteria Trust must endeavour to obtain best price on open market in selling asset. Trust advise that whilst best price is likely to be achieved by way of residential development they emphasise that when final offers are invited on open market it will not necessarily be sold for that purpose. It would however enable Trust to more accurately evaluate final offers which could include a variety of uses including community beneficial use. Net proceeds from sale will all go towards improving NHS patient care on Island.

Alternative use of building for residential purposes will not, it is considered, detrimentally impact on character or setting of Listed Building and would indeed facilitate its maintenance. B national and local policy support a flexible approach in dealing with changes of use of Listed Buildings. As advised by Council's Conservation Officer demolition of inappropriate extension and balancing up of wings of main building have been handled sensitively and with respect to original architecture. Removal of pitched roof extensions and freestanding buildings is supported although removal of small building to east which was mortuary chapel is regretted. Use and general layout of main building, whilst extensive, will not adversely affect general character and ambiance of building. Importance of axial symmetry of building to north has been handled well, including retention of former landscaping to north elevation.

The provision of seven houses along the Hospital Road frontage are accommodated for by way of removal of the southern wing and minimum distance of some thirteen metres is achieved between the new build and the remaining footprint of the Listed Building. This distance, together with proposed design of dwellings, is considered sufficient to assimilate new development within grounds of Listed Building without adversely impacting on its character or setting.

Residential development of this scale on site of this size is expected to provide affordable housing in compliance with Policy H14 of the UDP. Such provision at 20% requires three/four units to be allocated for such provision. Agent states that three of the new units at the east end are to be made available for affordable housing but makes point that design and construction are the same as the remaining units fronting Hospital Road.

Whilst it is usual for Planning Authority to round up requirement for such provision, in this particular case, given considerable costs involved in ensuring appropriate alterations/works to the Listed Building, it is considered appropriate to require lower number of units of affordable housing in this instance.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim 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 proposal offers opportunity to bring back into active use and ensure continued maintenance of this Listed Building with proposed works improving overall appearance of the building whilst new build will successfully integrate within site. Proposal is therefore seen as complying with policies B1, B3 and H14 of the UDP and accordingly application is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Both applications) (Subject to planning obligation requiring three units of affordable housing to be provided on site).

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is particularly contentious and has attracted a substantial number of representations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to area of farmland on Limerstone Down, located to east of Brighstone Forest and north of the Worsley Trail. The approved wind turbines would be positioned within the field in a triangular formation, two located along the fence line which runs north/south parallel to the woodland which lies some 200 metres away with the southern most turbine approximately 100 metres north of the Worsley Trail and the northern unit some 285 metres beyond. The third turbine is also located on a field boundary some 250 metres east of the line on which the other two units lie.

Surrounding land is predominantly arable falling away gently to north of proposed site of turbines before rising up into forest beyond. To west, beyond the agricultural land is Brighstone Forest. Worsley Trail runs to south of site along ridge of downland beyond which ground falls away quite steeply. The general character of the area is one of open countryside used predominantly for agricultural purposes crossed by a bridleway to south and by Tennyson Trail and numerous footpaths which pass through the Brighstone Forest on higher ground to north and west.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/21144/S/27379 – Conditional planning permission for three wind turbines on land at Limerstone Down, to east of Brighstone Forest and north of Worsley Trail, was granted in January 1995. Consent was granted subject to a legal agreement in respect of route of construction traffic to the site.

TCP/21144A/S/28286 – Conditional planning permission for temporary siting of 30 metre high anemometer mast on land at Limerstone Down granted in January 1994.

TCP/21144B/P51/00 - Planning permission for three wind turbines on land at Limerstone Down, east of Brighstone Forest and north of Worsley Trail, renewed in February 2001. The consent was again subject to conditions and a legal agreement regarding route of construction traffic.

TCP/21144C/P972/01 – Conditional planning permission for temporary siting of 30 metre high anemometer mast on land to east of Brighstone Forest and north of Worsley Trail granted in December 2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The January 1995 approval for three wind turbines and the subsequent renewal in February 2001, were subject to a condition restricting the height and type of wind turbines as follows:

"Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the details submitted to and considered by the Local Planning Authority regarding the height and type of wind turbine proposed."

The reason for imposing this condition was to protect the visual character and amenities of the area.

Current application seeks to vary this condition to allow erection of an alternative design of wind turbine with an increased blade length from 15.5 metres to 22 metres. The machines would be located in the positions detailed in the previous planning submissions and the hub height of each machine would remain unchanged at 30 metres. Maximum overall height of machines from ground level to tip of blade when in vertical position would increase from 45.5 metres to 52 metres. Output of each turbine would be increased from 300 kw to 600 kw with total maximum energy production from site of 1800 kw. It is also understood that towers to turbines would be slightly wider, thereby enabling transformers to be accommodated within base of tower rather than externally.

In correspondence received subsequent to submissions of the application, applicants agent provides comparison between approved turbines and proposed turbines as follow:

Increase in hub height of 0%;

Increase in blade length of 41.9%;

Increase in rotor diameter of 41.9%;

Increase in total height of 14.3%;

Increase in swept area of 101.5%; and

Decrease in rotor speed of 12.9 % to 41.9%.

Application was accompanied by letter providing information in support of proposal which is attached to this report as an appendix. In addition, applicants agent has submitted an Environmental Report providing additional information in respect of the proposal, copies of which it is understood, have been sent directly to Members. This report provides Photomontages and Zone of Visual Influence diagrams providing an indication of the impact of the proposal and a comparison between the approved turbines and those now proposed. Information contained in the report includes details of public attitudes to wind power, the rural economy - farm diversification, tourism, noise issues, economics of wind power, renewable energy policy, employment generation, energy conservation and wind power and project description in respect of current proposal and decommissioning.

In the section of report regarding specification, applicants agent advises that the turbines would begin generating power at hub height with speeds of between 3 - 5 m/s rising to their rated output at velocities of 12 - 15 m/s at hub height. The design of turbines is such that should 10 minute average wind speeds reach 25 - 35 m/s they would automatically shut down for safety reasons. Once erected, the turbines would operate automatically requiring visits (by Landrover or similar) approximately 2 - 4 times per month. The report indicates that the proposed wind cluster at Limerstone Down would generate annually electricity output equivalent to average domestic consumption of approximately 1200 homes and would reduce dependence on fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, by up to 5100 tonnes each year.

The report also provides details on decommissioning of the site. In this respect, at end of operational life, site would be decommissioned leaving little if any visible trace. The wind turbines would be removed, foundations and site tracks covered over with topsoil and reseeded. The cables interconnecting turbines would be de-energised and left in place. Any electrical sub-station building would be removed. The decommissioning operation would take approximately two months to complete.

In terms of renewable energy policy, the report advises that studies of potential renewable energy supply in the UK have consistently identified onshore wind energy as one of the renewable sources best places to make a significant contribution. The report contains an extract from Government Energy Paper 62 which concluded that onshore wind energy:

“has the potential to make a significant contribution to UK energy supplies; possibly as much as 10% of electricity generation, provided it is given credit for its environmental benefits. “

The renewable policy is one element in the wider climate change programme – important not only in helping to meet emissions targets but in stimulating development of new technologies for the UK and overseas while providing diverse energy sources and contributing to rural development.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 - The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (February 1997) provides advice on the role of the planning system in relation to the countryside. Of particular relevance to the current proposal, paragraph 4.8 advises as follows:

"In general, policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, though it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well being of the areas."

Planning Policy Guidance Note 22 - Renewable Energy (February 1993) provides advice and sets out the Government's policies on planning in relation to renewable energy. Relevant sections of the guidance note are considered to be as follows:

Paragraph 5.

"A main advantage of using renewable energy is its contribution to limiting emissions of greenhouse gases (the gases which cause global warming). The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), produced principally from the burning of fossil fuels. At present power generation accounts for around one third of CO2 emissions. Some renewable energy sources (eg solar, wind and tidal power) produce no CO2 or other gaseous emissions at all."

Paragraph 8.

"Government policy is set out in Department of Environment Paper 55 'Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward'. It is to stimulate the exploitation and development of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable".

Paragraph 21.

"Sites proposed for the development of renewable energy sources will often be in rural areas or on the coast, and such development will almost always have some local environmental effects. The Government's policies for developing renewable energy sources must be weighed carefully with its continuing commitment to policies for protecting the environment. It will always be important that a particular proposal

should cause the minimum harm to the countryside or the coast. Details of policies in that respect are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes on The Countryside (PPG7) and Coastal Planning (PPG20)."

Paragraph 26.

"The Government continues to recognise the fundamental importance of policies to protect the landscape and wildlife and certain areas are designated in which stricter planning controls are applied."

Paragraph 28.

"Particular care should be taken, in assessing proposals for developing renewable energy projects, in National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, The Broads and Sites of Special Scientific Interest."

Paragraph 29.

"In assessing proposals in designated areas, the Government's policy on renewable energy, summarised in paragraphs 1 - 14 of this Guidance Note, requires to be balanced with the need to take full account of the specific features or qualities which justify designation and guidance contained in section 3 of PPG7."

Paragraph 31.

"Local Planning Authorities and others should consider at an early stage whether Environmental Assessment (EA) should be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Environmental Assessment Regulations."

The PPG contains an annex which focuses specifically on wind energy and considers a range of issues, including grid connections, siting issues, degree of disturbance, planning implications including safety, noise levels, signal interference, siting and landscape. Paragraph 3 of the annex advises as follows:

"The principal of harnessing wind energy by windmills is well established, but modern wind turbines have some distinctive features which must be taken into account in planning and development control. These are:

a) The need to site the machines in open exposed locations often in rural areas which may also be in attractive landscapes;

b) The nature of noise emissions from the turbines;

c) The movement of the blades; and

d) Considerations relating to safety and electro-magnetic interference."

In terms of the available technology, the Annex to the guidance note advises as follows:

"While recognising that in the long term, activity offshore may prove commercially viable it is likely to be more costly and technically riskier than onshore development. Onshore wind energy has already emerged as one of the more promising renewable energy sources of electricity generation in the UK, following experience in the US and Denmark and Netherlands where several thousands of wind turbines are currently operating. Apart from the need to demonstrate adequate reliability throughout the lifetime envisaged for a wind turbine, which can only be achieved by operation for fifteen to twenty years, there is no doubt about the technical feasibility of wind power."

Site is located in countryside outside any development boundary defined on Unitary Development Plan. Site is within Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and land to north, west and south of fields within which turbines would be situated is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 - The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

S10 - In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historic or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development. 

G5 - Development Outside Defined Settlements.

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character.

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

U18 - Development of Renewable Energy.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

AONB Officer

Initial comments of AONB Officer were received shortly after submission of application. AONB Officer advised that application had been considered by the Joint Advisory Committee. As a result, the JAC drew attention to current AONB Management Plan which has as one of its management aims (MA4) that "only on the basis of a full environmental appraisal, appropriate renewable energy projects be accepted within the AONB". They indicated that, at no stage has this application or the existing permission been subject to an EIA and requested details of the reason for not requesting one, either previously, or for the current variation. They noted that the project does fall into Schedule 2 and in view of the high landscape value of the AONB it might have been reasonably expected to require such an assessment.

The JAC also drew attention to guidelines produced by the British Horse Society which recommends that for turbines of this size a minimum distance of 200 metres from the nearest public bridleway should be required. In this instance, nearest turbine is approximately 80 - 100 metres and the increased blade length makes this recommendation even more pertinent.

In general, the Committee pointed out that it will consider all applications on their particular merits but that the Authority should be taking into account the recommendations of the AONB Management Plan, which has been accepted by the Council. Therefore, they would expect that any future application, either for this site or any other which impacts on the AONB, will be expected to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Further comments were subsequently received from the AONB Officer in which he advised that the variation of the rotor blades to the previously approved application does not, in his opinion, have a significant impact. However, as a general point, he pointed out that, since the original planning application was approved, there has been much debate with regard to the placement of wind turbine structures adjacent to public rights of way and, in particular, bridleways. He comments that, in their latest guidance notes, the British Horse Society strongly urge Planning Authorities to stipulate a minimum distance of 200 metres from the base of a turbine structure to any bridleway and although this exceeds the recommendation given in PPG22 - Renewal Energy which states that structures should be set back at least to the equivalent height from railways and roads, it may need to be considered in relation to heavily used bridleways. AONB Officer comments that, should future proposals be submitted at different sites, such comments may have a stronger role to play in determination of planning applications than they did when the original application was approved.

Following an inspection of the site by the AONB Steering Committee and consideration of the matter by the Isle of Wight AONB Partnership Development Control and Planning Work Group, further comments were received from the AONB Officer. I am advised by him that the group wish to express continued concern of the Isle of Wight AONB Partnership with regard to lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or equivalent document with respect of the original permission for three 300 kw turbines on the site and that this has led to a number of issues not being given the consideration that they believe they deserve in weighing up the impact that such structures will have on the local character of the area. Furthermore he advised that the group wished to reiterate the statement of the JAC of the former AONB Project that all applications for wind turbines within the designation should be accompanied by an EIA to assess their impact on this nationally important landscape.

With regard to the current proposal, he advised that the group remain concerned about the route and disruption that may be caused by the required cabling infrastructure for the turbines and the group expressed their desire to be involved in discussions on this matter when final details are submitted to the Planning Authority for their consideration. He commented that the impact of the turbines on users of the public rights of way network and in particular the public bridleway BS10 (Worsley Trail) remains a concern and the group felt that the environmental report, submitted by the applicant’s agent, was lacking in its consideration of these matters. In particular, no reference is made to the potential change in the impact on equestrians due to the increased blade size and closer proximity of the blade tips to the ground. He also commented that there is no mention of the likelihood of bird strikes although it is accepted that little data exists in the UK on this matter. The group accepted that, despite the misgivings about the history of the planning approval on this site, there was a need to concentrate on the potential impact of the increased blade size on the AONB designation. In this respect, the work group resolved that the increased blade size would not have a significant detrimental impact on the AONB designation, bearing in mind the extant planning permission.

Environmental Health Manager

Comments have been received from the Environmental Health Manager, which have been formulated following consideration of information submitted in respect of the current proposal and noise readings taken of an operational wind turbine. I am advised by him that he calculates the nearest residential premises to the current application site (Blakes) to be approximately 700 metres south of the southern most of the proposed turbines. He has calculated that, taking into account noise readings taken of an operational turbine in Cumbria, the noise level at this property from the proposed site would be no more than 20 LAeq. He considers that this level is extremely low and estimates that the background level (L90) within that area would be between 25 and 30 dBA. Consequently, he considers that the noise from the proposed site would be indistinguishable from other noises in the area, unless there are particular tonal qualities which make the noise stand out. However, he indicates that he did not notice any such tonal qualities when carrying out his noise reading exercise. He expresses a view that, from a subjective point of view, he did not find the noise from the turbines he visited a problem and would be very surprised if any noise from the application site could be discernible, let alone a problem, at the nearest domestic properties.

Agenda 21 Officer

When originally consulted, the Agenda 21 Officer expressed view that dimensions did not seem to be a significant increase from the original proposal although in terms of perceived landscape impact she acknowledged that this is a subjective judgement. In view of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, she considered that it would be advisable to seek EIA on the proposal as this would allay the community's concern about the Authority's overall commitment to environmental protection. She indicated that her main concern centred around the fact that the Council is now in the process of developing a Community Renewable Energy Strategy which will provide a framework for decision making on the development of all forms of renewable energy sources on the Island. She advised that the strategy was planned to be finalised by September 2002 and it is anticipated that if adopted by the Council, future applicants will have a very clear picture of what is and is not appropriate. She realised that this is little help to the determination of the current application and considered that every endeavour should be made towards satisfying very real concerns about environmental detriment.

Over the last eighteen months the Renewable Energy Strategy has been fully developed in partnership with the Island’s community and on 8 October 2002 was approved as drafted by the Environment and Transport Committee. The E & T Committee recommended that the Strategy should be put before the Executive Committee of the Council where it will be considered on 3 December 2002.

Countryside Agency

Countryside Agency expressed concern that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been prepared in respect of proposal. As a matter of principle in relation to the designated status of this site, the Agency recommended that EIA is undertaken for the proposed development to ensure that all the environmental impacts are fully addressed. The Agency comment that they were not consulted on the original proposal to erect the wind turbines and if they had been, they would have recommended that EIA was undertaken. On a more general point, the Agency advised that, before any wind energy applications are considered, the Council should undertake a Countryside Character and Wind Energy Study for the areas which would provide information on the opportunities, constraints, conditions and overall capacity for wind from a countryside character prospective. In addition, they consider that this information will enable the Council to make an informed decision on the current and any subsequent applications for wind energy in the Isle of Wight.

In subsequent correspondence the Countryside Agency indicated that they fully support the Government's drive on renewable energy and that they head the DTI and DEFRA backed community renewables initiative. However, they indicate that this does not mean that they support renewable energy developments unconditionally and their philosophy is to see renewable energy integrated with other objectives, not as a development type which has automatic primacy. They again drew attention to their advice suggesting that the Council should undertake a Countryside Character and Wind Energy Study for the area. The Agency maintained its view that the application should not proceed without an EIA.

Following submission of additional information by applicants’ agent, in the form of an Environmental Report, further consultations were carried out with the Countryside Agency and a copy of the report was sent to them. The Agency indicated that, in their opinion, the supporting document is simply a reinforcement of the developers case to proceed with this development and does not constitute an Environmental Statement. The Agency suggest that, should the Council wish to claim that it qualifies as an Environmental Statement, then it should be submitted to the Institution of Environmental Management and Assessment for their decision. The Agency suggests that this document should not be used by the Council to inform its judgement and emphasise the need for an EIA to be undertaken to ensure all the environmental impacts are fully addressed.

English Nature

English Nature have considered application in terms of its possible impact over winter migratory birds flying to and from European sites within the Solent, in particular estuaries associated with Solent and Southampton water SPA and RAMSAR sites. They advise that the development does not affect any known migratory bird flight paths and, therefore, is unlikely to result in significant fatalities through bird strike. Taking this into account, as well as the fact that the application site is not in close proximity to any SPAs and RAMSAR sites, English Nature advise that proposal is unlikely to have any significant effect on the interest features of any European sites within the Solent. Therefore, they advise that, in accordance with Regulation 48(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats and c) Regulations 1994 the proposal will not require an appropriate assessment. Furthermore, they confirm that they are not aware of any other nature conservation interests that would be adversely affected by the proposal.

National Air Traffic Services

National Air Traffic Services advise that the proposal has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, they raise no objection to the proposal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Brighstone Parish Council advise that they appreciate the need for renewable energy but consider the Island, in general, is too small for a vast amount of wind turbines which they consider will occur if this development is allowed. The Parish Council objects to the current proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Site located in AONB and visible from miles around including the Heritage Coastline.

Proposal would have detrimental affect on users of adjacent bridleway and would deter tourists from visiting Island.

Wind turbines would be a disfigurement to the downland and would be source of noise pollution and detriment to existing wildlife.

Disturbance to radio and TV transmissions.

Three turbines not viable and if allowed would lead to more in order to generate sufficient electricity.

Turbines would be intrusive in an unspoilt part of Island.

Parish Council express view that turbines should be sited off-shore or on the mainland in vast open areas away from development, tourists, wildlife etc.

Following receipt of additional information further consultations were carried out with the Parish Council. Parish Council maintain their concern with regard to proposal and commented that, whilst Island is committed to producing 10% of its energy from alternative means, there are other areas on the Island which are not an AONB where this could be achieved. In fact, they consider that the Government could achieve its targets without any turbines on the Island. They also commented that the report submitted by the applicants agent does not state how the electricity produced is to be transported i.e. overhead or underground and that, usually, increased blade length needs to be supported by a higher mast and this is also not made clear. The Parish Council reiterated its comment that three turbines are going to produce very little energy and are concerned that to be viable more will be required and site could be turned in to wind farm.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Publicity of original submission attracted total of 175 letters opposing proposal including 144 letters from Island residents, 19 from residents of mainland and abroad, 1 from pressure group THWART and 6 from consultant acting on their behalf, together with letters from the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight, West Wight Roadrunners, British Horse Society, The Ramblers Association and Wight Ventures. Grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Noise pollution.

Eyesore on landscape and intrusive - would detract from beauty of Downs causing more harm to already threatened countryside and would damage environment.

Inappropriate site for such structures - would detract from AONB.

AONB has equal status in landscape terms to National Park - impact of larger bladed turbines contrary to purposes of designation would result in increased swept area from 755 square metres to 1,521 square metres and bring blade from 14.5 metres to 8 metres above ground level - increased visibility breaching horizon from many vantage points - substantial increase in impact to detriment of character and amenities of area.

Island unsuitable physically and geographically - too small for such structures.

Adverse impact on Heritage Coast.

Wind turbines would be on 200 metre contour - one of highest on the escarpment making them visible from miles around on Island and good distance into Hampshire.

Should be sited well away from residential properties and AONB.

Proposal represents change of use of land for industrial purposes.

Wind turbines inefficient and will not supply all our energy requirements - energy produced does not justify damage to landscape. Not enough wind to make turbines work – accuracy regarding predicted wind speeds is questioned.

Application should not be treated as variation to extant permission but should be regarded as new proposal for larger turbines and should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Hazard/disturbance to paragliders, hang-gliders, horse riders and walkers on nearby trails - turbines would be within 100 yards at closest point to Worsley Trail.

Government recommends that all wind farms should be sited off-shore.

Parts of blades etc falling from turbines present hazard.

Turbines will cause TV interference.

Adverse impact on wildlife – including migrating birds flying into blades. Island is ecologically fragile and unique.

Approval of current application will lead to more and bigger turbines.

Development does not comply with UDP policies C1 and C2.

Detrimental impact on tourism.

Strobe effect of sunlight passing through blades would be detrimental to health.

Method of distribution to national grid is questioned – overhead cables or underground.

Other more viable and environmentally friendly methods of generating renewable energy exists.

Adverse effect on Ventnor radar station.

Consent for renewal of planning permission improperly given - no EIA submitted - existing consent is totally flawed.

Proposal described as minor amendment - would in fact represent 100% increase in swept area doubling output to 600 kw.

Worsley Trail passes within 100 yards of one turbine - British Horse Society has policy that no turbines should be within 200 metres of bridleway or equivalent.

Advice in PPG22 (paragraph 37) - a setback from roads and railways of at least height of the turbine - Horse Society consider firmer guidance required.

Advice in PPG7 contains positive statement concerning horse riding and gives advice on need to consider impact of proposed developments on public rights of way.

Effect on reducing global warming would be tiny.

Electricity would go directly into National grid and not benefit local area directly.

Consideration should be given to cumulative impact of such structures on the landscape and its ability to absorb them - landscape assessment should be carried out in anticipation of further proposals.

Damage to environment during construction - use of byways for access by construction traffic is opposed.

Renewal of planning permission for the wind turbines improperly granted as application not accompanied by EIA - existing consent totally flawed.

Number of objectors indicate that they support the principle of renewable energy but are opposed to any wind turbines being erected on the Island. Several objectors have also expressed concern that development would affect property values in locality. However, this factor is not relevant to the consideration of a planning application.

Two letters received from Island residents supporting proposal and raising the following issues:

Provide clean sustainable energy source with no pollution.

Do not detract from landscape or act as a "blot on the landscape".

Hardly any noise even close to machines - just swishing sound from rotating blades.

AONBs must be protected - however, providing no damage caused installing turbines, would be good for the Island - provide new jobs.

Consultations were carried out with NTL in respect of the original application and further comments have now been received from them in respect of current proposal. They maintain their objection to the proposal and comments can be summarised as follows:

Wind turbines have potential for causing interference to TV reception.

Experience has shown that it is unlikely significant interference will be caused beyond about 10 kilometres behind the turbines or 0.5 kilometres elsewhere around the wind farm.

Development has potential to remove television service from approximately 1,000 people in Brighstone area - suggestions made to overcome problems - including repositioning turbines or by other more technical measures.

Objection maintained until evidence that developer has entered into legally binding commitment to meet cost of investigating and rectifying any problems that may arise.

Following submission of additional information by applicant’s agent, application was readvertised and letters sent to all third party representees. As a result, a further seventy nine letters were received objecting to the proposal including sixty nine letters from Island residents, three from mainland residents, and letters from THWART (2), Wight Ventures, CPRE, Solent Protection Society (2) and The Ramblers Association. A large proportion of these letters were from residents who had objected to the original submission and, in addition to the original points raised, additional grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

Production of enough energy to meet Government target will necessitate large number of wind turbines.

Additional information provided not written by environmental expert but an energy expert and chemical scientist with vested interest.

Suggestion in Environmental Report that there have been no recorded incident of death or injury from turbines is no guarantee that this good fortune will hold good for the future.

Associated infrastructure would be unsightly.

Turbines will cause distraction to drivers on roads leading to accidents.

Environmental Report is flawed and should be challenged.

Hazard to aircraft - illumination necessary creating unacceptable visual intrusion.

No potential employment gain or economic benefit.

Environmental Report submitted by applicants does not fulfil role of EIA.

Technology proposed in 1995 is now obsolete and proposed turbines verging on edge of obsolescence.

Wind energy cannot be stored and requires permanent power station for back-up.

Use of Photomontages on wide angle photographs do not give true picture and are misleading.

Wind farms being withdrawn in Denmark.

Determination of application prior to publication of supplementary planning guidance would be premature.

Adverse health effect from low frequency sound generated by turbines.

Application for renewal of planning permission was received after original consent expired - not therefore renewal of consent but entirely new application which should have been accompanied by EIA.

Report submitted by applicants agent contains insufficient information to enable proper assessment of proposal.

Should application be approved, insurance bond should be posted to fund removal of turbines and reinstatement of land should they become obsolete.

Policy for treatment of large scale dominant and obtrusive machinery in such prominent countryside environment locations should be urgently reviewed.

One letter received was prepared by a Chartered Town and Country Planner who cites other cases refused on mainland as a demonstration that visual impact outweighs renewable energy considerations. Letter also contains details of cases for turbines where visual impact was less important and in some instances other factors led to refusal e.g. effect on wildlife.

Copy letter received from THWART to the Deputy Prime Minister requesting that application is called in by GOSE on basis that proposal raises issues of more than local importance and would give rise to extensive and adverse significant effects not outweighed by modest energy output. Copy of letter from Solent Protection Society to Deputy Prime Minister making similar request was also received. Letter from THWART indicates that their request is also supported by Isle of Wight Branch of the CPRE, Mr Andrew Turner - MP for the Isle of Wight and Mr Roy Perry - MEP for the South East Region. THWART's letter was accompanied by information, compiled by the consultant acting on their behalf, to support their request and expanding on their earlier objections. A copy of this information is available at the Seaclose offices and an additional copy will be placed in the Members lounge, prior to the Development Control Meeting on 19 November.

In the documentation submitted by THWART, they indicate that they generally support development of appropriate schemes for renewable energy in most suitable locations to address environmental issues generally. Benefits of such proposals should outweigh or not necessarily involve other adverse environmental impacts. They are concerned that targets for renewable energy are being driven by an unnecessary concentration on land based wind power as the most convenient but also the most environmentally destructive technology. They believe that the UK can meet its targets for renewable energy without sacrificing the landscape to wind turbines. THWART concludes that when the desired objectives of energy policy and of minimising environmental effects are brought into balance, the project's minute contribution is far outweighed by the adverse effect on a nationally designated landscape.

The document suggests that the proposed scheme for three 52 metre high turbines on elevated position on crest of the Island's AONB would have potentially more significant and adverse impacts than others constructed in Southern England. THWART's consultant provides more detailed information to support their argument that application should be accompanied by an EIA. Nevertheless, the documentation suggests that the Environmental Report produced by the applicants agent follows much the same structure as would a relevant Environmental Statement for applications of this nature and then goes on to question the reason for avoidance of submitting an EIA and to assess the benefits of following the EIA procedure.

THWART's consultant suggests that, if the Local Planning Authority through its screening opinion, determines that proposal will not have significant effects, the Authority is predetermining that the application should be approved or that it would make it difficult to conclude at a later date that the application should be refused.

The consultant addresses the issues relating to site selection and suggests that, in the case of the current proposal, no indication that any other sites have been considered. Consultant also concludes that information presented to assist in visual assessment, including the ZVI's and photographic information, are inadequate and misleading and do not enable proper assessment of impacts of the proposal.

Documentation expands on grounds for objection already lodged. The conclusion to the documentation contains the following entry:

"THWART concludes that the adverse visual effects of this small proposal will be both significant, adverse and harmful to interests of acknowledged national importance. By selecting for the Island's first wind powered project one of the most conspicuous, sensitive and popular sites, the applicants have made a travesty of the Countryside

Agency's sequential approach by turning it into reverse gear. This is indeed one of the inherently most sensitive sites where there will be a strong presumption against wind energy developments.... leading to conflict amongst stakeholders.

RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE SOUTH EAST

In response to the request by THWART and the Solent Protection Society that the application should be called in, Government Office for South East has written to the Local Planning Authority setting out its position in this respect. GOSE advise that the Secretary of State's general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of Local Planning Authorities, unless it is necessary to do so, and Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for day to day planning control in their areas. Local Planning Authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with minimum interference. However, I am advised that there will be occasions when the Secretary of State may consider it necessary to call in a planning application to determine himself instead of leaving it to the Local Planning Authority and his policy is to be very selective about calling in such applications. He will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved and if those issues need to be decided by the Secretary of State rather than at local level. Each case is considered on its own facts.

GOSE have carefully considered all the matters raised regarding the current application and advise, in this instance, that the Secretary of State considers that the main matters relevant to this decision are his policies to support Government's commitment to renewable energy, to meet national obligations to protect designated areas from inappropriate forms of development and minimise the impact on local communities outlined in PPG22 (Renewable Energy); and his policies to promote sustainable development in rural areas and the need to promote healthy economic activity in rural areas as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG7 (Countryside). Having carefully considered these and other relevant planning issues raised by this proposal, GOSE have concluded that the Secretary of State's intervention would not be justified. They consider that the application concerns a relatively small scale variation to an existing planning permission that would be of not more than local significance and which would not be more appropriately decided by him rather than the Local Planning Authority. They advise that call in of the Section 73 application could not examine the principle of development on this site. The Secretary of State has therefore concluded that the application should be decided by the Isle of Wight Council.

GOSE advise that requests have also been made that the Secretary of State should direct that the developer should undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for this proposal. Having considered the information submitted to them, GOSE see no reason as to why the Council should not remain responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Regulations are complied with.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Members will be familiar with the planning history of this site and grant of planning permission for three wind turbines, which was renewed on 2 February 2001 and remains valid until February 2003. When considering these applications, issues relating to the principle of erecting wind turbines in this locality, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have been thoroughly examined. In addition, other matters including access to site by construction traffic and the method and route of cabling to connect turbines to national grid were considered at time of dealing with these previous applications. Current application seeks to vary one condition of the previous consent to permit erection of an alternative design of wind turbine with an increased blade length. Therefore, I consider that factors relevant to the consideration of the current application relate only to the impact of the increase in the blade length, including the effect on the landscape character of the area, the impact on the adjacent rights of way and any noise emissions from the turbines. Consequently, I do not intend to address all of the grounds of objection raised by third party representees, particularly those relating to the principle of installing wind turbines in this location, but to concentrate on issues relating to the effects of the increase in blade length.

Before considering the planning merits of the proposal, Members will note from the Representation section of this report that third parties are of the opinion that this proposal should not be dealt with as a variation to the extant planning permission but should be the subject of a brand new application for erection of wind turbines at the site. This matter has been the subject of consultations with the Council's Senior Solicitor who is of the opinion that the mechanism by which the applicant is seeking a variation to the design of the wind turbines to be installed at the site would not be incorrect. In particular, she makes the point that this alteration is not being dealt with as a simple amendment but as an application to vary a condition which is subject to the usual publicity and referral to Committee.

I am also in receipt of a copy of an appeal decision made by the Scottish Executive, against refusal of planning permission by Dunfries and Galloway Council to vary a condition of a planning permission for the erection of five wind turbines, connection building and access road, to allow installation of 31.5 metre high wind turbines with 44 metre diameter rotor blades. The condition in question restricted the type of wind turbines to be used to that described in the planning submission, similar to the condition in question in respect of the approval for turbines at Limerstone Down. The Inspector, (referred to in Scotland as an Appeal Reporter,) in that case did not question the mechanism by which the applicant was seeking a variation of the type and size of the turbines to be installed and allowed the appeal. I consider that this information supports the approach adopted in connection with the current application and the view expressed by the Council's Senior Solicitor.

Concern has also been expressed by third parties that this application should not be dealt with without submission of a full Environmental Impact Assessment and that this is a mandatory requirement. The relevant legislation in this respect is the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and guidance in this respect is also provided in Circular 2/99 - Environmental Impact Assessment. For Members information, the proposed development is of a type which appears in Schedule 2 of the Regulations and the number and height of the turbines exceeds the threshold specified therein. Therefore, the proposal clearly falls within the scope of the Regulations. As such, the development must be screened in order to determine whether an Environmental Statement will be necessary. In reaching this decision, regard should be had for the advice contained in the Circular. In this respect, paragraph 29 of the Circular advises that Schedule 2 development is of a type listed in Schedule 2 which:

a) is located wholly or partly in a "sensitive area" as defined in Regulation 2/1;

b) meets one of the relevant criteria or exceeds one of the relevant thresholds listed in the second column of the table in Schedule 2.

An important factor in determining whether an Environmental Statement will be necessary includes where the development is within an environmentally sensitive location. The Circular advises that for any given development proposal, the more environmentally sensitive the location, the more likely it is that the effects will be significant and will require EIA. Certain designated sites are defined in Regulation 2(1) as "sensitive areas" and the thresholds/criteria in the second column of Schedule 2 do not apply. The implication of this is that all development must be screened for the need for EIA. However, it does not mean that submission of an Environmental Statement is mandatory. The Circular also contains an Annex which provides advice as to where Environmental Statement may be required in respect of specific development proposals. In respect of wind farms, the Circular advises that the likelihood of significant effect will generally depend upon the scale of the development and its visual impact, as well as potential noise impacts. Furthermore, it indicates that EIA is more likely to be required for commercial developments of five or more turbines, or more than five megawatts of new generating capacity.

The advice contained in the Circular, and particularly that on development in environmentally sensitive locations, indicates that special consideration should be given to areas which are ecologically sensitive, such as SSSIs, and other such special internationally/nationally designated areas. In these areas, the Circular indicates that the likely environmental effects of Schedule 2 development will often be such as to require EIA if it is to be located in or close to such sites. In the case of the current proposal, site is not within or considered to be close to such designated area that it would have a significant impact. In the case of other sensitive areas, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the question as to whether the development will have a significant effect is considered to be more subjective. The Circular advises in paragraph 38 that:

"For any Schedule 2 development, EIA is more likely to be required if it would be likely to have significant effects on the special character of any of the other types of sensitive area or the New Forest Heritage Area. However, it does not follow that every Schedule 2 development in (or affecting) these areas will automatically require EIA. In each case, it will be necessary to judge whether the likely effects of the environment of that particular development will be significant in that particular location."

In the case of the current proposal, it was considered that the existence of extant planning permission for 3 wind turbines at the site is a relevant factor when determining whether EIA is necessary. Therefore, in assessing the need for EIA in connection with the current proposal, which principally involves an increase in the blade length of the approved turbines, it was considered that the effect on the landscape character area from the increase in blade length would not be so significant as to warrant the need for an Environmental Statement. Circular 2/99 provides advice in respect of proposals to change or extend development that is already authorised as follows:

“Development which comprises a change or extension requires EIA only if the change or extension is likely to have significant environmental effects. This should be considered in the light of the general guidance in the Circular and the indicative thresholds in Annex A. However, the significance of any effects must be considered in the context of the existing development.”

The Council's Senior Solicitor expressed opinion that, whilst an Environmental Impact Assessment has not been carried out, the additional information submitted, which includes Zones of Visual Influence and Photomontages, is sufficient to deal with this proposal. Furthermore, I do not consider that the decision not to require the submission of an Environmental Statement in respect of the current proposal in any way prejudices the Authorities determination of the application.

Third party objectors to the proposal advised that they had obtained Counsel’s opinion regarding the means by which the application was being dealt with. A copy of that opinion is contained in the report submitted by the consultant acting on behalf of THWART. In the introduction, he states as follows:

"Advice is required on the extent to which the terms of an original permission may be changed by modification without the submission of a new application, and the circumstances in which it should be re-submitted when the relevant Environmental Impact Regulations have changed in the interim."

With regard to modification of planning permission, he states as follows:

"Planning Acts allow revocation on modification of planning permissions, where the Authority considers it expedient. The Power only applies where the development has not yet been completed, and the order of revocation or modification must be referred to the Secretary of State, who can confirm or reject it. In the event of revocation or modification, provision is made for the payment of compensation."

This advice is quite correct and relates to procedures where the Authority, when considering an application for development, may wish to revoke or modify an earlier consent. However, it would appear that the Counsel in question has not necessarily been given the full facts surrounding the current situation. In this instance, it is the applicant who is seeking to vary the planning permission granted for the erection of three wind turbines. During pre-application discussions with the applicant's agent, the Authority resolved that this matter could not be dealt with as a minor amendment to the approval and that it would be necessary for a new application to be submitted in this respect which would then be subject to the usual publicity requirements.

Original submission was accompanied by Zones of Visual Influence diagrams and wire line illustrations of turbine types providing a comparison between the approved turbines and the proposed turbines with an increased blade length. The Zones of Visual Influence diagrams provide an illustration of locations from which the turbines would be visible over a 20 kilometre radius. The illustration breaks down further into those locations where only one turbine, two turbines or all three turbines would be visible. However, this information, whilst taking into account contours of the land, does not take into account features such as natural growth and buildings and, therefore, presents the worst case scenario. Furthermore, it is considered that impact of the turbines would diminish with increasing distance. Therefore, at a distance of 20 km, it is unlikely that the turbines would be discernible. Further information was subsequently submitted by the applicants agent, in the form of an environmental report, which included photo montages together with more detailed Zone of Visual Influence diagrams providing a greater degree of information on the visual impact of the proposal. These diagrams again provide a comparison between the approved turbines and the proposal. The assessment of impact is based on a scoring system which is colour coded whereby the greater the score, the greater the impact of the proposal. Also included in the information is a Zone of Visual Influence diagram which provides a clearer indication of those areas from which the proposed turbines would be visible where the previously approved turbines would not. Clearly, this increased impact would relate only to the extra length in the blades of the turbines. Again, it is understood that, whilst these diagrams take into account the contours of the land, they do not take into account trees and other features which may obstruct any view of the turbines.

It is considered that the turbines would have greatest impact when viewed from within the immediate locality of the site, particularly from the Worsley Trail which runs immediately adjacent the fields within which the turbines would be located. The Photomontages provided by the applicants agent would appear to indicate that, due to the contours of the land, it may not be possible to see all three, if any, of the turbines from certain areas. In particular, this information indicates that the turbines would not be visible from the area around the centre of the village of Calbourne and from within areas around Brighstone, all three turbines would not necessarily be visible. More importantly, I consider that this information demonstrates that the increase in the blade length from 15.5 metres to 22 metres would not significantly increase the impact of the turbines in the landscape.

Increase in blade length is likely to have implications in terms of noise generated by the wind turbines and, although blades on proposed turbines would turn more slowly than those on the approved machines, it is understood that noise output will depend on a number of factors, including wind speeds and blade design. The issue of noise is referred to in the annex on wind energy to PPG22 which simply advises that well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation. Unfortunately, the guidance note does not give any guidance as to what overall levels could be considered as being acceptable for noise from a wind turbine development. However, it is understood that, as a result of practical difficulties experienced in applying existing guidelines to wind farm noise assessments, the Department of Trade and Industry set up a Noise Working Group in 1993. The advice of the group was as follows:

"For single turbines or wind farms with very large separation distances between the turbines and the nearest properties ...... we are of the opinion that, if the noise is limited to an La90, 10 min of 35 dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10 m/s at 10 metres height ...... background noise surveys would be unnecessary.”

In the case of the proposal at Limerstone Down, the nearest noise sensitive property is approximately 700 metres from the application site and the above advice is considered to be relevant. Information on noise levels submitted by the applicants agent included predictions on noise levels for the approved turbines and the proposed machines with larger blades. The predictions are based on a windspeed of 10 m/s at 10 metres height as required by the DTI Working Group recommendations. The information submitted by the applicants agent provides an indication of the predicted noise levels at several properties in the area, including the nearest one at approximately 700 metres. This information indicates that there would be a slight increase in noise levels from the proposed turbines, when compared with the approved machines, although this increase would not be significant and, in any event, would be within the DTI Working Group's recommendations. Furthermore, it has been suggested by the Environmental Health Manager that it is unlikely that noise from the application site could be discernible, let alone a problem, at the nearest domestic properties.

Whilst noting concern of third parties regarding effect of proposal on nearby Worsley Trail, particularly for equestrians, it should be noted that guidance on location of turbines provided in PPG22 suggests that they should be located at least the height of the turbine from any road or railway. This advice would appear to be based principally on grounds of safety in the event that the structure failed. In addition, the guidance note suggests that drivers can be distracted by unfamiliar objects or by movement and cautious approach to siting turbines near roads may be justified, especially for example near a busy road which carries tourist traffic and has a bad accident record. These guidelines are clearly less stringent than the suggestions of the British Horse Society which recommends a distance of 200 metres from any bridleway or equivalent. However, having regard to the isolated location of the application site and in the absence of any specific guidance from the Government in this respect, I do not consider that refusal of the application on these grounds would be sustainable.

In terms of the general safety considerations, whilst tip of blades on proposed turbines would pass closer to ground than approved machines, a distance of eight metres would still be maintained. Furthermore, it should be noted that the turbines would be located on private land, in area where users of the Worsley Trail and other footpaths would have to leave the public right of way to come in close proximity to the turbines. The issue of safety is addressed in the Annex on wind energy to PPG22 which advises as follows:

"Experience indicates that properly designed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology. The very few accidents which have occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by failure to observe manufacturers and operators instructions for the operation of the machines. There has been no example of injury to a member of the public, only to operational staff.

The only source of possible danger to human or animal life from a wind turbine would be the loss of a piece of the blade or, in most exceptional circumstances, of the whole blade. Many blades are composite structures with no bolts or other separate components. Blade failure is therefore most unlikely. Even for blades with separate control surfaces on or comprising the tips of the blade, separation is most unlikely."

The advice in the Annex also addresses the issue of icing and suggests that the build-up of ice on turbine blades is unlikely to present problems on the majority of sites likely to be developed in the near future.

Increased blade length may also have implications for transmission of TV. and radio signals, particularly having regard to location of site between the Rowridge transmitter and the relay station at Thorncross. In this respect, Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 - Telecommunications advises that the construction of new buildings or other structures, such as wind turbines, can interfere with broadcast and other telecommunications services. Therefore, the possibility of such interference is a material planning consideration. This matter was considered when dealing with the previous applications for wind turbines at this site and, as a result, the permission granted was subject to conditions in this respect. These conditions would remain valid and would require the developer to carry out an investigation of the present TV signal strength in the Brighstone area and submission of details of works necessary to ensure continued reception of TV signals to the original strength. In the event that such measures do not achieve an adequate standard of TV reception in the Brighstone area, it was also a requirement of a condition of the consent that further measures should be implemented or that the three turbines should be dismantled and permanently removed from site. Therefore, I am satisfied that this issue has been adequately addressed.

It has been suggested that erection of wind turbines on the Island, particularly in an area of high landscape value, would deter people from visiting the Island and be detrimental to the tourism economy. Information contained in the Environmental Report submitted by the applicant's agent suggests that wind farms can prove to be a tourist attraction. Furthermore, the report provides details of an independent survey carried out in 1996 which showed that, of 311 visitors to North Cornwall who were interviewed on the subject, 95% stated that the presence of wind farms had no impact on the likelihood of them visiting the area again, 6% were encouraged to visit area again due to the presence of wind turbines and only one person was discouraged from revisiting the County. This view is supported by a recent article in the Planning Journal which suggests that it is a myth that wind farms put tourists off visiting beauty spots. A poll by MORI Scotland has revealed that nine out of ten tourists visiting Scottish beauty spots say that the presence of wind farms makes no difference to whether or not they would return to the attraction. The survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyle was commissioned by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) and the Scottish Renewables Forum and is considered to be the first major test of opinion in a scenic area which backs recent Scottish Executive surveys of residents near wind farms whose opinions became more positive when sites became operational. The article also indicates that about one in five of those surveyed had actually seen one of the three wind farms in Argyle and more than half said that the wind farms had a positive effect on them with only 8% complaining that it left them with a negative impression of the area. In light of this information, I do not consider that refusal of the application on the basis of the perceived impact of the proposal on the tourist economy would be justified.

Applicant’s agent has confirmed that connection to the National Grid would be provided by under ground cables, the exact route of which remains to be agreed pursuant to a condition of the extant planning permission. However, it is understood that most likely point of connection to National grid would be in Lynch Lake. I am advised that the connection between any switchgear building and the National Grid would be undertaken by Scottish and Southern Electric as a Statutory Undertaker and not by the applicant or his developer.

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 Respect for Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impact which this development may have on a designated AONB and its overall visual and aural effect on owners/occupiers of property in the area and on other third parties have been carefully considered and set out in detail in the report.

Whilst there may be some interference with the rights and freedoms of those people, this has to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of the applicant to develop the land in accordance with its proposal. Insofar as there is any interference with the rights and freedoms of others, it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportionate to the legitimate aim 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 do not consider that an increase in the blade length of the approved turbines will have a significant effect in terms of the impact of the development in the landscape. In particular, in view of the fact that planning permission remains valid for the erection of three wind turbines at this site, I do not consider that the impact of this variation would be such as to warrant refusal of the current application.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application has attracted a substantial number of representations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to open area of land (recently cleared) situated alongside (east) of Coniston Drive which is cul-de-sac which leads off Spencer Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This is full application seeking detailed consent for construction of detached dwelling alongside no. 53 Spencer Road together with construction of detached garage along rear boundary of site.

In order to increase plot width proposal also entails repositioning of northern section of Coniston Drive westwards by approximately some two and a half metres. Proposed details show dwelling having similar building line to no. 53 being set at slight angle to that property to reflect route of realigned Coniston Drive. L-shaped two storey dwelling will comprise lounge, kitchen and hallway at ground floor level with three bedrooms and bathroom above. Also proposed is single storey rear conservatory and single detached garaged served off new dropped kerb onto Coniston Drive.

Given difference in levels between application site and adjoining property retaining wall will be constructed along part of boundary of site with the remainder of site bounded by existing hedging and chain-link fence.

Plans indicate removal of saplings and dead elms towards front of site and retention of mature oak tree. Along western edge of realigned highway plans indicate removal of various dead elms and bay trees, retention of healthy trees and construction of dwarf stone wall either side of entrance to Coniston Drive.

Realigned highway will have width of some 4.8 metres wide and single pavement width of 1.2 metres.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 policy seeks generally to encourage where appropriate development in town and on brown field sites in order to relieve pressure on countryside.

Site unallocated for any specific purpose within adopted UDP.

Site lies within designated Ryde Conservation Area and Members will be aware of both national guidance and UDP policy which seeks to protect and enhance such areas. The following policies of the UDP are considered relevant:

G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development).

D1 (Standards of Design).

B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas).

H5 (Infill Development).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that Coniston Drive is unadopted highway and as such Highways Department has no objection to proposal. However, they would expect to see some improvement to road surface and make the point that surface water from newly aligned private road should be intercepted and suitably disposed of before reaching adopted highway, Spencer Road. It is recommended that appropriate condition be attached to any consent to cover this issue.

Environmental Health Officer raises no comment.

Council's Ecology Officer has visited site and has noted that it has largely been cleared of trees and whilst he accepts that narrow wooded corridor alongside road did have wildlife value and would allow red squirrels to move through and provide sheltered feeding areas for bats, with loss of most of trees on site it fails to fulfill this function.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

With regards originally submitted proposal the following comments were received.

One letter received raising no objection in principle with a further four letters raising no objection as proposal provides opportunity to upgrade existing road and improve site lines, with further point made that development would not be out of keeping with nearby Listed Building.

Thirteen letters of objection have been received with grounds of objections summarised as follows:

Existing loss of trees on site with potential for further removal.

Change in character of Conservation Area and locality in general.

Loss of outlook and reduction in spaciousness.

Inaccuracy of plan.

Inappropriate density.

Loss of amenity.

Loss of habitat.

Adverse impact on privacy.

Plot size considered too small.

Inappropriate parking and manoeuvring.

Replacement pavement width inadequate.

Development located on dangerous corner with adverse consequences for highway safety.

Proposal neither preserves nor enhances Conservation Area.

Increase in on-street parking problems.

In respect of revised proposal, following readvertisement two letters of support were received with further letter raising no objection in principle but raising concern over loss of trees on site.

Sixteen letters of objection were received and in addition to repeating objections summarised above in respect of original submission, further objections raised in respect of following points:

Undesirable setting of precedent.

Inadequacy of landscaping.

Continued inaccuracy of plans.

Potential legal challenge referred to in correspondence in respect of footpath and highway alterations is a civil matter and not relevant to consideration of planning application.

In respect of second revision, again, further publicity and consultation was carried out and as a result ten letters of objection have been received with writers repeating previous concerns raised in earlier letters and raising additional objections stating that revision is no less obtrusive than previous proposals, that garage is inappropriately sited and concern is raised concerning loss of trees from realignment of road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of infill development when viewed within context of Conservation Area and general street scene, impact on amenities of local residents and related highway issues.

Recently cleared site would, in normal circumstances, be considered to be too narrow to accommodate additional residential accommodation, however, proposal adjoins private road and pavements which are in some disrepair and, as a result, as applicant is owner of highway, application incorporates its relocation westwards which allows some increase in plot width.

Latest revised plan indicates plot width of 9 metres minimum and construction of dwelling which would allow gaps of 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres from eastern and western side boundaries respectively. Whilst plot size is smaller in width terms than those in immediate locality this issue in itself is not considered to be a serious planning objection rather it is the impact on the locality and adjoining neighbours which are of greater importance.

Proposed building would have similar building line to residential property to east and whilst plans indicate slight angle to Spencer Road, this reflects realigned Coniston Drive and indeed is reflected in properties west of Coniston Drive. It is not felt therefore that this issue represents sustainable objection to of proposed development.

Orientation and depth of plot results in limited impact on adjoining residential occupier to east and south, whilst existence of tree screen, distances involved and fact that single side facing window provides light to landing, proposal will be unlikely to adversely affect residential occupiers to west.

Proposal incorporates modern L-shaped dwelling on this site and given predominance of relatively modern buildings within Conservation Area on southern side of Spencer Road it is not considered that proposal will have any adverse consequences for character or appearance of Conservation Area within which it stands.

Notwithstanding the fact that site has undergone previous tree work involving removal of diseased/dying trees and clearance of undergrowth, Council's Tree and Landscape Officer advises that three existing trees on site are worth protecting, namely, on the eastern side of drive oak tree, on western side of drive horse chestnut and a further oak. She has advised that any consent is conditional on retention of these trees. She also advises that there are several trees which would be best removed as they will sooner or later be in competition with trees to be protected and she refers specifically to sycamore on eastern side of drive and sycamore and two bays on western side. Group of bays along western side of drive are not significant enough to warrant a Tree Preservation Order but form attractive boundary between drive and adjacent property and it is suggested any consent is conditional on retention of hedge. Agent has confirmed that new planting will be carried out to maintain natural tree and shrub cover enjoyed by adjoining occupier.

In respect of maintenance of private road, agent advises that his client has taken responsibility of road when he purchased property in Coniston Drive and since becoming responsible has made efforts to be in a position to improve road for betterment of residents. Approval of this application would allow realignment and road improvements in respect of Coniston Drive and submitted plan indicates construction of entrance featured dwarf stone walls either side of entrance and some limited improvement to visibility at junction with Spencer Road.

In view of above comments it is considered that proposal provides opportunity to upgrade private driveway whilst its realignment allows sufficient space for development of infill plot which will have no undue detrimental impact on character of Conservation Area or locality in general and which would raise no serious issue in respect of impact on residential amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. Proposal complies with Government advice in seeking to develop appropriate in-town sites (where appropriate) and provided appropriate conditions are applied concerning tree replacement and planting site should successfully integrate into this residential area.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant permission consideration has been given to the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Impact this development may have on owners/occupiers of neighbouring property has been carefully considered and whilst there may be some interference with rights of these people balance has to be achieved with rights of applicant to develop land in manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all matters outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the development of this plot as proposed will be compatible with the existing built environment and would not appear incongruous or out of character with existing development and would therefore have no adverse effect on character or amenities of designated Conservation Area or surrounding residential occupiers. Proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with relevant Unitary Development Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans)

Conditions/Reasons:

PART III

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by Chairman as she is not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Joe Daflo’s is situated on the southern side of the High Street within the Newport Conservation Area and operates as a bar/restaurant. Immediately to the east is the Hogshead pub, while to the west is the vacant cinema building, which has planning permission for a similar A3 (food and drink) use. There are a number of residential properties to the rear of the premises in Pyle Street.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/11483/K - New shop front, 21-22 High Street, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO301SS, approved 08/08/2001

TCP/11483/M - Retention of kitchen extraction system incorporating filters & silencer unit, Joe Daflo's 21-22, High Street, Newport, PO30, approved 18/09/2002

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application relates to the use of the first floor of Joe Daflo’s as an additional dining area. Work to convert the area has recently been completed and access to the first floor is via an internal staircase with the area providing seating for 28 people. No external alterations have been carried out to the building. The rear (northern elevation) of the building contains a solid door at first floor level providing access to the flat roofed extensions at the rear. There is also a window, which is fitted internally with a blind. Extraction fans and pipe work have also recently been removed from this elevation.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is within the Development Envelope and Town Centre Boundary for Newport and outside the retail-only frontage. Policy R6 ‘Areas Outside Retail-Only Frontages’ would apply and states that planning proposals for retail A1, A2 and A3 uses within the defined town centre shopping areas but outside the retail-only frontages will be acceptable in principle. Policy D1 ‘Standards of Design’ ensures that the proposal does not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer – no comment

Environmental Health Officer – no adverse comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection making the following points:

‘We have no difficulty with Application TCP/11483/P provided that the plans submitted are adhered to with regard to obscurely glazed windows and frames within the existing openings facing over our property. We would request a condition requiring the fire exit door to be closed at all times except for emergencies, in the interests of minimising noise disturbance from public use of the upper floor, and of preserving the privacy of our children’s play area and home. While no exterior security lighting is included in the applicants plans, this will presumably be required for the external fire exit from the upper floor, and we would request a condition that any such external lighting is shielded adequately so as to prevent glare to our bedroom windows.’

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

The conversion of the first floor area has not resulted in any external alterations. Boundaries of residential properties in Pyle Street are situated some 25 metres from the back of the buildings and there is a distance of around 45 metres from the rear of Joe Daflo’s and the rear of buildings in Pyle Street.

A further application TCP/11483/R is currently under consideration and relates to a proposed roof deck for use as an additional dining area. The proposed access to this area is through the door within the first floor dining area onto the flat roof at the rear of the building. However, in terms of this application, it is not proposed to use the door as a fire exit and accordingly it is not considered necessary or appropriate to introduce conditions relating to this in a grant of planning permission. While the glass within the one window on the rear elevation is clear, it is considered that the distance between the rear of the building and the residential property immediately to the rear (125 Pyle Street) is of a sufficient distance and that the provision of obscured glazing is considered unnecessary.

The use of the first floor of Joe Daflo’s for additional dining space is entirely acceptable in terms of policy R6 ‘Areas outside the retail-only frontage’ and conforms with policy D1 ‘Standards of Design’ in that the use is not considered to detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies R6 and D1 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Initially report requested by Local Member as not prepared to agree to the application being dealt with under the delegated procedure. Since being a change in Highway Engineer recommendation and reasonable to offer applicant hearing at Committee.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached property located on the eastern side of High Street, Wroxall, approximately 50 metres north of where High Street meets West Street. The site is within a residential area, the application site being elevated above road level with limited space in front of the property. There is an existing boundary wall and double yellow lines immediately outside the property on both sides of the road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference TCP/12348/A - application for vehicular access and hardstanding, refused permission on 15 July 2002 for reasons of inadequate visibility and inadequate turning facility.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to create vehicular access and hardstanding and has been submitted following pre-application discussions with Highway Engineer. Boundary treatment wall is to be of matching stone and concrete blocks.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within the Wroxall development envelope boundary. Policy D1 (Standards of Design), D4 (External Building Works), and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant.

In particular, Policy TR7 states that applications will be approved where they take account of matters for highway safety to ensure safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians, and that any new access provides safe conditions for all road users. Policy D4 relates to planning applications involving external works and states they will be approved where they retain existing boundary walls or where new walls relate well to the character of the area and damage to landscape is minimised.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Development Control Engineer has personally inspected the site following a request to review Highway comments on application which had recommended approval. Highway Engineer is aware discussions took place between applicant and agency engineer temporarily working for Highways resulting in a revised drawing being submitted and an understanding that a favourable decision may be forthcoming.

Highway Engineer is concerned on safety grounds, particularly in respect of the limited visibility to the south (which is outside the applicant's control) and recommends refusal.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wroxall Parish Council recommend refusal as although revised scheme improves turning ability it was felt that access remains unsatisfactory by reason of inadequate visibility in the face of traffic approaching the property from Ventnor.

Further letter from Parish Council received requesting clarification as to Part 1B procedure as they had assumed an application recommended for refusal by the Parish Council resulted in automatic reference to Committee. Letter in response to this concern explaining process has been sent by East Team leader.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Local Member comments as follows:

"As Local Member in connection with the above mentioned application, I am not satisfied with your proposal to determine this matter in accordance with the delegated procedure. In this particular case I wish the application to go forward for formal determination for the following reasons:

1.UDP - TR7(a) and (b). Juxtaposition to bend, junction and pedestrians, especially the vulnerable assessing village shop and post office, also crossing point for children going to school.

2. UDP - D4(a). Loss and alteration to important feature wall in village centre, 5.17, 5.18.

3. Highways have agreed to look at this again."

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

The proposed parking area is shown to be 14 metres by 3.3 metres which does not utilise all the available space at the front of the house. There are other dwellings within the vicinity who already have vehicular access onto the High Street.

In terms of the loss of boundary feature wall, it is considered refusal on these grounds would not be sustainable as new front boundary wall will be built to one metre above nominal road height retaining characteristic of site.

Taking the above points into consideration, the interests of highway safety are considered to be of paramount importance in the determination of this application.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is considered that there are no human rights implications in connection with this application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the application is contrary to Policy TR7 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan as there is inadequate visibility in a southerly direction from the access point and recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site is located on the northern side of Kite Hill adjacent to Wootton Creek. Site is industrial with three main buildings on site, one is red brick built with slate roof, the remaining two, both of which have extensions subject of this application, are constructed of corrugated tin. There are also four storage containers sited to the rear of the site.

The site adjoins Wootton Creek to the west and residential property to the east and north east.

RELEVANT HISTORY

This application has been generated as the result of an enforcement investigation. There is no recent relevant planning history.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The site is within Wootton development envelope boundary. Application seeks consent for two ground floor extensions, canopy and four storage containers which are already in place. The business carried out on site is manufacture of clocks, canvass pictures. The four storage containers are sited to the rear of the site and used for storage in connection with the business. The first extension has been erected to the rear of the central building on site and is constructed of plastic coated sheeting with perspex roof measuring 7.87 metres by 4.84 metres to a maximum height of 2.72 metres. This extension replaces an old wooden shed and provides additional storage.

The second extension is located on the north west side of the building sited closest to the Creek. This measures 5.45 metres by 3.66 metres to a maximum height of 2.6 metres and is also of plastic coated sheeting.

The canopy that has been constructed projects forward of the main central building on site and is constructed of perspex roof with timber supports. The application supports an existing industrial site allowing expansion and an additional three staff to be employed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is within the Wootton development envelope boundary. Policy G1 (Development Envelope for Towns and Villages), G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), E6 (Expansion of Existing Industry and Offices), E9 (Employment Development Anywhere Within Settlements) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan are considered relevant.

In particular, Policy D1 supports development which respects the visual integrity of the site, of sympathetic scale, materials and does not detract from reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings. Policy E6 supports expansion of the existing industry, particularly where this will lead to additional job opportunities and Policy E9 permits development as long as compatible with adjacent uses at the scale proposed.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer has no comment on application.

Environmental Health Section have no adverse comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

No comment received.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection on grounds of proposal being unsightly, increase in commercial vehicles backing into site, disposal of rubbish.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

In balancing issues, main consideration is visual impact of development, impact on adjoining neighbours, and development supporting existing industrial use.

The development is partially visible outside the site and from the far north west side of Wootton Creek. It is relevant that the extended buildings are of poor quality materials and the storage containers do not enhance built environment.

Concerns relating to traffic increase are considered not sustainable given Highway Engineer's comment.

Storage of rubbish is shown on application to be by skip and Environmental Health do not object to application.

The development supports an existing industry and is necessary due to the expansion and success of business. Although materials used are of limited merit, I am of the view that overall, when set against the locality, the proposal is not presenting a significant intrusion or circumstances justify refusal.

Given the above, a time limited approval would seem reasonable allowing time for the business to either relocate or develop the site more comprehensively.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights have been considered in proportionality to proposal and it is considered there are no implications in respect of this proposal.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations I am of the view that the proposal represents acceptable development supporting existing industrial use for a temporary period and recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is located within a residential area with guest houses in the vicinity close to the Sandown town centre. Property is a semi-detached substantial dwelling.

RELEVANT HISTORY

No recent relevant history.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent to change of use from dwelling to house in multiple occupancy providing nine letting bedrooms and a communal kitchen. There is a garden to the rear of the property but no parking within the site. Details accompanying the application indicate the premises have been previously used as an hotel, no external changes are to be made and the building is already equipped for proposed use in terms of fire alarms and en-suite facilities. Intention of applicant is to rent to single employed people who can support weekly rent of between £65 to £80.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Policy H11 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) (HMO's) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan is relevant. In particular, "Planning applications for houses in multiple occupation will only be approved where;

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

b)        an acceptable and assessable amenity area can be provided;

c)        public transport is easily accessible.

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

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer makes no comment.

Housing Officer has been consulted to ascertain whether lack of lounge and/or dining facility would prejudice amenities of occupants and has confirmed that there is no requirement for a common room as long as certain standard conditions are adhered to; size of kitchen appears adequate although almost certainly some work will be necessary under housing legislation for use as a HMO.

Environmental Health Section have no adverse comments.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Objections on grounds that dwelling is in T5 (Hotels Outside of Defined Hotel Areas) and detrimental to the surrounding hotels and guesthouses. It is also felt that under the Human Rights Act there is likelihood of disruption to peoples way of life.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

A petition objecting to conversion of property on grounds of detracting from normal residential status and encourage persons that would disrupt the normal peaceful area has been received containing signatures from fifteen properties.

Nine letters of objection have been received with strong objection to proposal on following grounds:

1.        Inappropriate location due to residential character of area.

2.        Effect on tourist trade.

3.        Increased parking problem.

4.        Increased crime and antisocial behaviour.

5.        Effect on neighbouring property privacy.

6.        Lack of supervision, monitoring of occupants, nature of occupants, lowering of house values, detrimental to area.

One letter supporting application from owner of application site on basis of providing affordable accommodation.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Applications of this nature contribute to the full range of normal housing provision and whilst such proposals inevitably attract local concern, it is important to bear in mind that the identity of occupants or type of person to be accommodated by reference to age or other characteristics is not itself land use planning consideration. Local Planning Authority would therefore have no control over nature of occupant. Main consideration is whether application complies with Policy H11 and in particular effect on amenities of neighbours and character of area, adequate amenity for occupants and accessible public transport.

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

Given property's previous use as guest house/hotel and substantial size of property, it is considered no reasonable planning objection can be raised in terms of land use and intensification. Parking concerns have not been substantiated by Highway Engineer.

With regard to Town Council's comments, existing use of property is residential, not guesthouse.

Public concern and fear are matters which are capable of constituting material planning considerations and accordingly should be given appropriate weight in the decision making process. Whilst concern expressed is appreciated, it is difficult to objectively assess such comments in relation to whether perceived problems would occur. It should also be noted that when such matters fall to be considered by Inspectorate at appeal, it is common for such objections to be rejected on basis that they are subject of comments which lack evidential detail or are matters which are not planning considerations.

In assessing local concern, it is important that relevant planning considerations are taken into account in deciding whether premises are suitable for proposed use.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights have been considered in proportionality to proposal and it is considered there are no implications in respect of this application. It is not disputed that there will be some impact as with all development.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, I consider the proposal accords with Policy H11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application site has been the subject of a lengthy ongoing enforcement investigation and there are a number of issues to be resolved.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application relates to a flood lit enclosed all-weather pitch situated to the north of the main Carisbrooke High School and adjoining the school’s eastern boundary. Residential properties immediately abut the eastern boundaries with the nearest properties being 11 and 13 Mountbatten Drive. The all weather pitch is 16 metres from the eastern boundary at its closest point. The all weather pitch itself is elevated when viewed from Mountbatten Drive.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/19394/C – Replacement fencing to redgra pitch to height of 4.2 metres; water tank & equipment store, Carisbrooke High School, Mountbatten Drive, Newport, approved 25/05/94

TCP/19394/M – 8 15m high shielded floodlights to light existing all weather pitch, Carisbrooke High School, Mountbatten Drive, Newport, approved 17/08/2000

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application involves the increase in the height of a section of fencing by 1.2 metres for a length of 35 metres along the north east elevation of the pitch. The additional fencing is made of air permeable netting and will be dark green in colour. The purpose of the application is to reduce the glare from the floodlights sited on the south west elevation of the pitch and facing some of the properties in Mountbatten Drive. A public footpath runs along the south eastern boundary of the school adjacent to the pitch and is considered to be unaffected by the proposal.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is outside of the development envelope for Newport and within an area allocated for education use. Policies U5 ‘ Schools Provision’, U6 ‘ Higher and Further Education Sites’, U7 ‘Provision of School Playing Fields and Protection from Development’ relate to the site and policy D1 ‘ Standards of Design’ would apply to the proposal.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer – no adverse comments.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of objection received with the following comments:

Public footpath N54 runs through the property.

‘If the lights were angled down towards the playing pitch instead of down the field, this extra fencing would not be needed.’

‘I cannot see that by fitting a piece of plastic netting 1-2 metres high will stop the severe light intrusion into surrounding properties. I having problems from light stations A5, 6, 7 and 8. There is no way a piece of plastic netting would solve this.’

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Conditional planning permission was granted in August 2000 for eight, 15 metre high floodlights subject to a number of conditions including a condition to limit the hours of operations of the lights to 21.30 hours. Condition 4 and 6 are also relevant to this application and are as follows; Condition 4 states ‘The floodlight installed shall produce an average illumination across the pitch area of not more than 350 lux which shall be retained and maintained thereafter.’ Condition 6 required ‘before the floodlights hereby approved are installed, a scheme of shielding light sources to minimise spillage towards adjoining residential property in Mountbatten Drive shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and the agreed shielding shall be provided and retained in place at all times when the floodlights are in operation.’

In November 2002, following complaints from a small number of residents relating to interference with television reception and light spillage from the floodlights, it was discovered that the scheme required by condition 6 had not been submitted and the enforcement team contacted Property Services in order to resolve the problem.

Lighting engineers from Musco Lighting Europe Ltd, who supplied the lights, visited the site in December 2001 in order to take lux (unit of illumination) level readings and while on site the engineers checked the alignment and aim of each lamp and re-aimed where necessary. The engineers then confirmed in writing that in their opinion the lamps were correctly aligned and while the lights were still being burnt in, they would stabilise at the level specified by condition 4. The uniformity of light across the pitch provided an even, accurate distribution of light, which was in line with the level they had originally specified. They confirmed that ‘the light is where it is supposed to be as it is not possible to gain correct lux levels and uniformities on a incorrectly or poorly aimed pitch.’

Further complaints were received from the same local residents following this assessment and the enforcement team continued to seek a means to satisfy their concerns by requesting a further visit to the Island from Musco Lighting Europe Ltd, so that they might speak directly to the residents and look at other options to satisfy them. A further meeting was arranged in April 2002 to discuss options for providing light shields to prevent light spillage to the neighbouring properties.

Following this meeting, it was agreed that 16 TLC (total light control) visors would be installed in place of the existing LV8 visors on the poles on the school side (south west elevation) of the pitch. Additionally these floodlights would be aimed a few degrees down to help the situation. Once these measures were in place, it was also decided that additional fencing, which is the subject of this application, would be erected to help reduce further the effects of the glare.

1 to 51 Mountbatten Drive are situated immediately to the north east of the pitch. These comprise of terraces of bungalows with open plan front gardens accessed by a footpath, with garage courts serving their rear. The floodlighting can be viewed from each of the footpaths serving the properties and within the garage courts, however it is considered that the terrace comprising of 33 to 41 Mountbatten Drive faces towards the floodlighting on the south west side of the pitch and the glare from the source of the lighting is at its worst from this point. The proposed fencing has the effect of screening these four floodlights when viewed specifically from the footpath between 31 and 33 Mountbatten Drive. The effect of screening the glare in this way can only be achieved using fencing in this location as due to the difference in levels between the pitch and Mountbatten Drive the floodlights appear just above the level of the existing fencing when viewed from the footpath between 31 and 33 Mountbatten Drive. It is considered that the netting will screen the worse effects of the glare from the pitch at this point.

Similar measures along the south eastern elevation of the pitch when viewed from the footpath between 1 and 13 Mountbatten Drive would have a far more limited impact as the visors on the floodlights partially screen the source of the light and the differences in levels between these properties and the pitch mean that the screening would only be effective along a short stretch of footpath.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations as described in the Evaluation section above it is considered that while the proposal will not remove the problem of glare from all the floodlights at all locations within Mountbatten Drive, it will have the effect of reducing the worst effects of light glare for the properties between 33 and 41 Mountbatten Drive. When considered in conjunction with the alterations already carried out to the floodlighting to ensure that light spillage is minimised, the proposal represents a concerted effort to address the concerns of local residents. For this reason it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and complies with policy D1 ‘Standards of Designs’ of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application is a departure and in conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan and raises conflicting considerations.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site comprises 1.26 hectares of land located on the north east side of Newport Road, within the Rookley Industrial Estate, located on its north west side. Overall dimensions of 140 metres by approximately 100 metres, the land is presently occupied by several buildings, the majority of which are used for the breaking of vehicles and the recovery of parts. It also includes warehousing and some light industrial uses. The land associated with the car breaking is particularly untidy with scrapped vehicles, crushed vehicles and parts occupying many parts of the site, typical of this kind of operation.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications over many years relating to the car breaking businesses, light industrial applications, storage and distribution applications and many other uses and developments on the industrial estate.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Outline planning permission for houses and flats; eighty in number although all matters are reserved for future consideration; accompanying plans show possible layout of the site utilising access off north eastern end of Pritchetts Way, back into the site with a development of three culs-de-sac with semi-detached houses, detached houses and flats, although no details of the buildings have been submitted.

In support of the application a letter from the agent indicates that they intention is to transfer the licensed car breaking operation from Rookley to a licensed site at Ryde which is within the control of the applicant. This site is located off Upton Cross.

In addition a further site off Trafalgar Road in Newport, between its junctions with New Street and West Street is also within the ownership of the applicant, a site which, the applicant claims has a B2 use (general industrial).

It is explained by the agent that vehicles would be dismantled at the licensed Ryde site and the useful reclaimed spare parts would be delivered for processing and packing at the Newport site for dispatch within the UK and abroad. There is no salvage operation proposed at the Newport site.

The agent suggests the entering into of a 106 Agreement to control the operation.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The majority of the site is shown within the Unitary Development Plan inset for Rookley as being a scheduled employment site. Policy E5 (21) identifies 1.12 hectares to be developed for B1, B2 or B8 employment uses. The site forms part of that annotation.

Policy E3 seeks to protect or enhance the employment use of existing and allocated employment land stating that applications for the change of use of land or premises to those outside employment use will not be permitted with certain exceptions including the relocation of a non-conforming use from an unsuitable existing site.

Policy H1 expects the majority of new residential development to be located within main settlements stating that planning applications for major residential schemes outside those settlements will not be permitted.

Policy G10 sees to ensure that only compatible uses are located together.

Policy H3 identifies allocated residential sites.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Environmental Health Officer raises concern over impact of noise emissions from adjacent industrial uses on residential occupation, recommending comprehensive assessment to be carried out at all times to ensure levels of noise emitted from adjoining industrial uses are not so high as to cause conflict of use.

Contaminated Land Officer recommends conditions (if approved) to ensure adequate steps taken to deal with any contamination found on the site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Rookley Parish Council strongly recommend refusal on grounds of development contrary to Policy E3 and potential conflict with surrounding development and activities as described in Policy G10 of the UDP.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of comment from a local resident raising concern over the excessive density of the development and possible problems with additional traffic entering and exiting the site at its junction with the main road.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

This application seeks consent to redevelop comparatively large area within the existing Rookley Industrial Estate for residential use and is proposed as an enabling development to remove a use which has the potential for causing noise and environmental pollution to sites elsewhere. The uses elsewhere appear to have valid consent for the proposed new uses and therefore this application is a standalone proposal in planning terms.

The site is within the development envelope and therefore the introduction of residential development is not, in principle, considered inappropriate in the area generally. However, the site is one identified for employment uses under Policy E5 and Policy E3 seeks to protect or enhance the employment use of existing and allocated employment land by resisting changes of use of such sites to those outside employment use.

Policy H1 expects the majority of new residential development (and in interpretation of that policy I consider it means large residential or major residential schemes) to be within the main Island towns. This development of eighty units in Rookley is a major development which would inevitably put excessive pressure on the villages infrastructure in the widest sense which in turn would put demand on the Local Planning Authority for further developments in terms of service and community uses to cater for the influx of a substantial new population.

Policy G10 recognises the potential conflict between incompatible uses. Even without this fairly large proportion of the industrial estate, the remaining activities form a thriving industrial and employment centre where conflict in terms of environmental and noise pollution are unlikely to be resolved without fettering the industrial or employment activity. In addition, the domestic traffic associated with such a substantial residential development is proposed to use the same access and the potential conflict of heavy and domestic vehicles is of great concern.

On the positive side the proposal represents the removal of a use which is acknowledged as an essential one on the Island but which, wherever it is located, is likely to cause environmental and noise pollution. Removal from this location may benefit some residential property. Having said that, conditions on previous planning permissions and general environmental controls by the Public Health Act should be sufficient to resolve any difficulties at present.

In summary I consider the objections in policy terms to outweigh any benefits from granting permission considerably and accordingly recommend refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

It is not considered there are any human rights implications in connection with this particular application.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all the matters outlined in this report I am of the opinion that the development of this site for residential purposes is likely to result in a clear contradiction of policies in the Unitary Development Plan which are designed to safeguard employment sites, to achieve a compatible form of development where conflict of land uses would not arise and to steer major residential developments to the principle Island towns and therefore I consider the proposals to be contrary to policies G10, H1 and E3 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site is located on the southern side of Newport Road (A3020) immediately to the west of the Northwood cemetery and to the east of a reservoir, which is owned by the Isle of Wight Freshwater Angling Association. The site is wedged shaped with the widest boundary abutting Newport Road and the eastern boundary immediately abutting the cemetery boundary wall. The site is generally overgrown, well treed on all boundaries and slopes downwards away from Newport Road.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/22629 – outline for 10 dwellings; vehicular access and associated parking, land adjacent Northwood Cemetery, Newport Road, Cowes, refused 26/06/1998, dismissed on appeal 28/01/1999.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The outline application is for a medical centre and pharmacy with siting and access to be considered. The proposed building is to be placed adjacent to the northern boundary of the site with access to the east of the building. Parking for the centre is to the rear of the building.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is within the development envelope for Cowes and is allocated in the development plan as Open Space and Policy L4 of the Unitary Development Plan ‘Protection of Open Spaces, Village Greens and Allotments applies. This policy allows for the loss of public or private open spaces if the development is for community purposes, would be of greater benefit than retaining the open space and there are no other sites available.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer – concern over problems caused by lack of maintenance on the reservoir still apply. A minimum of 90m is required for visibility in both directions along Newport Road.

Environmental Health Officer – no adverse comments.

Ecology Officer – ‘ the application site is set within a well-wooded belt of land between the old reservoir and Northwood Cemetery. Both of these areas have nature conservation value and the wooded strip forms a valuable green buffer between them. It is a site which is used by Red Squirrels, as suggested in a letter of objection to the scheme, and it provides a useful area for them to move into from their main sites in Shamblers and Bottom Copses'.

Fire and Rescue Service – proposals are considered to be satisfactory.

Tree and Landscape Officer – comments outstanding.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Isle of Wight Freshwater Angling Association – support the principle of the project, however concerned for the following reasons:

Land is boggy and surface water drains into the site.

Drainage pipes cross the land from the reservoir site and their location are not known.

Would like a guarantee that an engineers report is requested to ensure the safe future of the reservoir and the drainage pipes.

GPs from Cowes Health Centre – support the application and explain that the site is their choice for the relocation of the practice for the following reasons:

Need for a suitable site is urgent after 15 years of searching, the practice have been in negotiation to secure a site at Cowes High School but it is not clear whether this will be successful.

Current practice building is 40% of the amount Government standards set to provide an appropriate service for the Cowes district. During a recent consultation exercise, 74% of patients who responded said they were in favour of the practice relocating to new, improved premises.

The application site is within walking distance of large areas of housing and is on a principle bus route. The practice serves a wide geographical area from Parkhurst to Shalfleet and therefore does not need to be within the centre of Cowes, particularly if a pharmacy is provided on site.

The Isle of Wight Animal Preservation and Action Group object to scheme due to the disregard for wildlife, particularly badgers and squirrels and loss of trees. There is already a Health Centre nearby and more than adequate facilities in both East and West Cowes.

One letter of objection from a local resident:

There are red squirrels on the site.

The development will attract on road parking and young people to the area.

The development should have been built in conjunction with new housing development in the Cowes area.

The site was originally used for allotments, is there a law to stop development of such land?

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

The land is within the development envelope for Cowes and would comply with policy L4 of the IW Unitary development Plan in that the application involves an urgently required community use for which another site has not been found, despite extensive searching. There is no land in Cowes allocated specifically in the Unitary Development Plan for a health centre and for this reason the principle of the use of the site for a health centre is acceptable.

Whilst the site is designated as open space within the UDP and although may have once been in use as allotments, it is now completely overgrow. The land is in private ownership and under planning legislation there is no means of enforcing a return to an allotment use. In its present state the land makes a contribution to the undeveloped character of the southern side of Newport Road, the development of the site in the form shown on the submitted plans restricts the buildings to the land adjacent to the road and the space to the rear for car parking. It is not known at this stage how many parking spaces would be required for the development, however, it is an opportunity to retain existing trees and to introduce new landscaping to help maintain wooded strips and to provide a green corridor to the rear of the site. This would allow the Red Squirrels the opportunity to move through the site and maintain some of the wildlife value of the land. Concerns about the potential for on road parking would be addressed once the details of a parking scheme have been received as part of a detailed application and these will be calculated in line with policy TR16 'Parking policies and guidelines',

Concern has been raised over the suitability of the site for development due to the stability of the reservoir immediately to its west and the boggy nature of the site itself. The previous refusal of planning permission (Reference TCP/22629) for residential development contained two reasons for refusal relating to drainage as follows:

‘Any construction works on this site would be likely to create instability in respect of the reservoir embankment which adjoins the western boundary’ and ‘having regard to the site being of constant flooding problems outside the owner’s control and in the absence of a land stability report, the Local Planning Authority does not have sufficient information to be satisfied that the development would not cause land stability problems of an acceptable environmental solution.’

However the Inspector’s report following an appeal into the refusal noted:

 ‘poor condition of the brick lining of the reservoir on my visit but saw nothing else to substantiate the concerns over the embankment which would appear very much bound together by dense tree growth. As for concerns over flooding, although there had been very heavy rainfall preceding my visit, such that I had encountered localised flooding and very wet ground conditions on the island, the great majority of the site appeared remarkably firm under foot.....these are two matters on which further information would have been necessary to establish whether there are substantial grounds for concern.’

Planning policy guidance note 14 ‘Development on unstable land’ has the following advice:

‘The responsibility for determining whether land is suitable for a particular purpose rests primarily with the developer. In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and/or the landowner. It is in any case in the developer's own interests to determine whether land is unstable or potentially unstable since this will affect the value of the land the costs of developing it. The developer should therefore make a thorough investigation and assessment of the ground to ensure that it is stable or that any actual or potential instability can be overcome by appropriate remedial, preventive or precautionary measures. It is important that such an assessment of a proposed development site should examine the site within its geographical context since instability of nearby ground may affect a site even where there is no evidence of instability within its boundaries.’

The stability of the ground in so far as it affects land use is a material consideration which should be taken into account when deciding a planning application. While planning policy guidance 14 further explains that ‘when there are good reasons to believe that instability could make the ground unsuitable for the proposed development, or could adversely affect it or neighbouring land, a specialist investigation and assessment by the developer to determine the stability of the ground and to identify any remedial measures required to deal with any instability may be required before the application can be decided.’ In this instance it is not considered that a full specialist investigation can be requested as the reservoir, which is the main cause of concern, is outside the application site, however the applicant has been asked to comments of the issues raised.

These have been addressed in a letter dated 4 October 2002 and attached as an appendix. In summary, the applicant states that ‘ the two schemes are materially different to the degree that the current proposal does not give sufficient grounds for concern’. Despite the fact that the siting of the building is a reserved matter, it is proposed to be placed on the highest part of the land where the height of the reservoir bank is at its smallest. The proposed parking area is at the lowest part of the site and would have less impact on the stability of the reservoir bank. Concern over flooding from surface water drainage could be mitigated by the installation of a balancing tank to control the outflow of water and/or the use of permeable surfacing on car parking areas.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable and can be supported in terms of policy L4 ‘Protection of open space, villages greens and allotments’ of the Unitary Development Plan in that the land will provide an essential community benefit. Given the constraints affecting the site, the siting of the building and access point onto the site are acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (subject to the views of the Tree and Landscape Officer)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to rectangular plot located on south western side of Downside Avenue, a private road, approximately 40 metres north west of its junction with Newport Road. Area is predominantly residential in character with commercial garage premises opposite site which fronts Newport Road.

Site is somewhat overgrown and is presently occupied by a dilapidated workshop building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/23013 - P/402/99 - Outline planning permission for dwelling and garage conditionally approved in May 1999 with all detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Current application seeks approval of reserved matters for a detached house with garage. Dwelling would provide accommodation comprising lounge, dining room, kitchen and w.c. at ground floor level with three bedrooms (one with en-suite facilities) and bathroom/w.c. at first floor level.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located within 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.

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.

H5 - Infill development.

C8 - Nature conservation as a material consideration.

TR7 - Highway considerations for new development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Following suggestions by local residents that there is a presence of bats, badgers, slow worms and grass snakes on site, consultations were carried out with the Council's Ecology Officer. I am advised by him, following an inspection of the site, that there is a hole at the front of the building which has been used by badgers. However, he indicates that it is much more overgrown than when he carried out a previous inspection of the site in 1999 at which time there was clearly more activity. He considers that this sett is not likely to be main sett but it does need to be investigated by an experienced badger consultant to establish whether it is currently in use in order that English Nature can advise whether exclusion is necessary.

With regard to bats, he advises that they may well fly through the derelict building but it is unsuitable as a roost as the roof is in a poor state of repair and no suitable bat roost sites were found in the structure. He comments that the site is overgrown and shaded and unsuitable for grass snakes, although they may well be living in neighbouring gardens. Similarly, most of the site is unsuitable for slow worms but their presence can not be ruled out. Therefore, he suggests that, if the proposal is accepted, this site should be surveyed and subsequent translocation operations, if required, should be carried out by a competent qualified consultant.

The Ecology Officer concludes that, should the application be approved, a badger consultant needs to be employed by the applicant to advise upon the implications for any badgers on the site and a suitably qualified Ecology Consultant should be employed to survey and, if necessary, translocate any reptiles found on the site. Such operation would need to be carried out before any works commence and between the months of April and October inclusive.

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Niton and Whitwell Parish Council recommend that application is delayed in order for investigations to be made into the possibility of habitats for bats in the barn and a badger sett in the back of the current building.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted three letters from local residents objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Plot very small in depth and width.

Concern expressed that dwelling should not be detrimental or likely to constitute over development.

Specialist reports should be obtained to ascertain merits of building as wildlife habitat - high probability of existence of badger sett, bats, grass snakes and slow worms.

Over development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Having regard to location of site within the development boundary, and previous approval of outline planning permission for a dwelling, the principle of its development for residential purposes has been established. Therefore, determining factors in considering current application are whether proposed dwelling is of an appropriate size, scale and design or would detract from the character of the locality and amenities of neighbouring properties.

Original submission was accompanied by plans showing dwelling which, although of an appropriate size, scale and mass was considered to be of inappropriate design and appearance which did not reflect character of neighbouring properties. Following negotiations with applicants agent, further plans were submitted which, although involving only relatively minor alterations to the design of the property, resulted in a building considered to be more in keeping with the area. Furthermore, I am satisfied that development of site as proposed will not have excessive or unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.

Having regard to comments of the Ecology Officer in response to suggestions that site offers habitat for protected species, I do not consider there to be any grounds to refuse application on basis of effect on nature conservation. However, should Members be minded to approve application, I consider that permission should be subject to appropriate conditions in this respect and that decision notice should be accompanied by letter advising the applicants agent of the need to employ services of a licensed badger consultant in order to ascertain whether badgers are present and an exclusion license is necessary.

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 impact this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other properties 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 applicants 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 applicants. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interests.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that development of site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle and that site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with its surroundings. In this respect, I am satisfied that the dwelling is of an appropriate design and appearance, in keeping with the properties in the immediate locality. Therefore, I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (covering letter to accompany decision notice advising applicant/agent that, prior to any work commencing on site, it will be necessary to employ the services of a licensed badger consultant in order to ascertain whether badgers are present and an exclusion license is necessary.)

Conditions/Reasons:

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The application site fronts onto The Broadway and is made up of the front garden of Byeways, a chalet bungalow. The land rises from the Broadway towards Byeways. Vehicular access to Byeways and several other properties is through an archway immediately to the north of the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is no previous history on the site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The outline application relates to a site measuring approximately 20 metres deep by 9 metres in width. No reserved matters are to be determined at this stage. Buildings to the north comprise of a three storey semi detached property with a retail unit at ground floor level and a vehicular access through an archway providing access to properties at the rear. To the south, Broadway Stationers occupies a two storey detached building. A concrete bus shelter partially obscures the front of the site. The site itself is an overgrown front garden and comprises of a hedged boundary on the southern side and chain link fencing to the northern side adjacent to the access track.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The application site is within the development envelope for Totland and policy H5 (Infill Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan applies and confirms that infill residential development will be approved if it will not unduly damage the amenity of neighbouring property. Policy D1 (Standards of Design) also applies and seeks to ensure that development enhances the quality and character of the built environment.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer – no comment

Environmental Health Officer – no adverse comment.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at time of writing.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection expressing concern over lack of information over number of dwellings proposed, the access to the site and parking, along with the need to develop the site in an area considered to be rural.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Officer given opportunity to comment, but no observations received.

EVALUATION

The application is for a single dwelling on the land edged red on the submitted plan. No other details have been provided at this stage, although siting, access, landscaping, design and appearance would be submitted for consideration under a detailed application. The land is within the development envelope for Totland and is acceptable as an infill plot provided the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area are not damaged.

The character of Broadway adjacent to the application site comprises of a mix of two, two and a half and three storey gabled buildings predominately terraced and of red brick with slate roof tiles. The majority of surrounding development is sited at the back of the pavement and there are few gaps between properties.

Although the site represents a break in development, the site is overgrown and it is considered that its development would not detract from the character of the street scene. Additionally, the width of the plot is compatible with other plots within the area. While development of the site would result in the loss of the front garden of Byeways, the property retains a side garden to its south and will retain sufficient amenity space around it.

At the present time, the highway engineer has no comments to make on the application. The application site is within zone 3 under the parking guidelines set out in Appendix G of the IW Unitary Development Plan and within this zone 0% up to 75% of maximum parking provision could be provided on site. The site is clearly large enough for the provision of parking and although the precise location of an access has not been given at this stage, there is no reason why this detail cannot be resolved at reserved matters stage.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to a recommendation, consideration has been given to the rights set out in the Articles 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 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 and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that the proposal conforms with policies D1 and H5 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

PART IV – ITEMS OTHER THAN CURRENT APPLICATIONS

(a)       TCP/3417D                           Unauthorised development to first floor maisonette at 10B,

                                                                      Mount Pleasant Road, Newport 

Officer: Mr P Barker             Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justify the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of a replacement wooden exterior staircase.

Background

In August 2002 a complaint was received that an exterior staircase and landing at this property had been replaced with a staircase and much larger landing at first floor level and was being used as a sitting out area. The main concern was that people on the landing could overlook the adjoining garden. An Enforcement Officer visited the premises and discussed the structure with the owner.

It was apparent that the length and width of the upper landing had been increased and the staircase moved further back into the garden. All the woodwork on this structure had been replaced apart from the stair treads. The stairs provide a secondary means of escape from the first floor maisonette.

The Enforcement Officer ascertained that this structure required the benefit of planning permission.

A letter was sent to the owners of the property informing them that the structure required the benefit of planning permission, giving them 28-days in which to apply. No reply has been received in respect of this letter, and a planning application has not been made.

The property owner has suggested that the new landing is only very slightly larger than the original one. However, observations suggest the replacement to be just over one metre larger. Property owner has been invited to comment on this issue but failed to respond.

Photographic evidence has now been received regarding the impact of this structure on the adjacent property and it is doubtful whether screening would completely overcome the problem.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Options

1.        To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the replacement stairs and elongated upper landing. Time for compliance four months from the date that the Notice takes effect.

2.        To indicate to the property owner that the Local Planning Authority proposes to exercise its discretionary powers not to request a formal planning application for the reinstatement of the landing and stairway to their original size and in the original position providing the specific details are agreed in writing with Officers before construction begins.

3.        To invite (without prejudice to the final decision) a planning application to reinstate stairs and upper landing of the original size.

4.        To take no further action in respect of this unauthorised structure.

Conclusion

This replacement structure requires the benefit of planning permission because 10B Mount Pleasant Road is a maisonette and therefore does not have the same permitted development rights as a dwelling house under Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The original landing at the top of the staircase was relatively small and the purpose of it was to provide a level area to stop at the top of the stairs and open the door. It appears stairway’s original function was a secondary means of fire exit for the maisonettes. Although continuing to offer this facility the longer and wider replacement landing has provided a sitting out area which causes severe overlooking problems to the neighbouring property, and although it is a civil matter, it is also alleged that the landing overhangs the adjacent property.

Whilst the use of the facility as a fire escape is acceptable, the additional use of the landing as a sitting out area impinges on the amenities of the neighbouring property and is contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered possible to overcome the amenity concerns by imposing condition (if a planning application had been made) or by some requirement through the mechanism of under-enforcement. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority must consider whether the service of an Enforcement Notice is the appropriate response given the circumstances as outlined above. On balance I believe that this is a proportionate response.

Regarding the re-instatement of a landing and stairway of the original size and position, I see no problem with such an action. On balance I do not think this should be part of the formal Enforcement Notice itself and making the property owner go through the formal process of a planning application for what is not going to be a contentious matter seems to be excessive. Accordingly, subject to clarification on the dimensions and position of the re-instatement, I propose to indicate to the property owner that the Local Planning Authority will exercise its discretionary powers not to call for a formal application. Hopefully, this action will help resolve the present breach of planning control. The time for compliance at four months is intended to allow the owner to seek and obtain the necessary agreement to rebuild a stair and landing of the original dimensions and then remove the present structure and install the replacement.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to serve an Enforcement Notice, considerations 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 has on the occupants of neighbouring properties has been carefully considered and weighed against the rights of the occupants of the maisonette. On balance, it is considered that the service of an Enforcement Notice is a proportionate response to the unauthorised development.

Recommendation

1. To issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the replacement stairs and elongated upper landing. Time for compliance four months from the date that the Notice takes effect.

2. To indicate to the property owner that the Local Planning Authority proposes to exercise its discretionary powers not to request a formal planning application for the reinstatement of the landing and stairway to their original size and in the original position providing the specific details are agreed in writing with Officers before construction begins.

(b) TCP/4526C       Change of use of art studio on ground floor and bike repairers on first floor to a single dwelling house at rear of 35 High Street, Cowes, Isle of Wight

Officer: Mr S Cornwell                    Tel: 01983 823592

Summary

To consider how the Local Planning Authority should respond to the failure to comply with a planning condition imposed on the above property.

Background

On 28 November 2001 an Enforcement Officer visited 35 High Street, Cowes to investigate an allegation that the property was in use as multiple occupancy accommodation. This was confirmed although it was indicated by the owner that this was only a temporary measure. A planning application was subsequently made and in February 2002 planning permission was approved for a change of use of art studio on ground floor and bike repairers on first floor to a single dwelling house. At the time the decision was made the use had already commenced.

A single condition was imposed which stated “Within one month of the date of this permission, a scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority providing details of ground floor doors which shall be fitted with a watertight seal. Such approved details shall then be fully implemented within one month from the date when the details are agreed and retained and maintained hereafter.”

This condition was imposed at the request of the Environment Agency to minimise the risk of property damage/loss of life should flooding occur.

On 24 April 2002 the owner was contacted by letter requesting that he submit the details for the watertight doors. A further letter was sent on 29 April 2002 drawing attention to a website offering flood protection services as the owner had indicated verbally he was unable to locate any firms who supplied flood protection measures.

No response was received and the Enforcement Officer contacted the owner again who said he had problems connecting to the website so a printed copy of this website was faxed to him on 15 May 2002.

Despite these efforts no response or contact was received from the owner which resulted in a Breach of Condition Notice being issued on 5 August 2002.

The owner then contacted the Environment Agency stating it was not possible to obtain a watertight product for the size of his door. The Environment Agency replied on 12 September 2002 advising that if he took all reasonable steps to secure the property from flooding this would help in any insurance premium increases and they also advised they cannot ensure that he implements such a system.

The owner then contacted the Enforcement Officer on 23 September 2002 advising that he would ensure all sleeping accommodation will be above the required level and he will endeavour to obtain any relevant information to prepare him for any possible flooding.

The Enforcement Officer sent a letter on 24 September 2002 advising that, due to specific wording of the condition, the only way to approach the situation is to apply to remove or vary the condition and the owner was given twenty eight days to respond. No response has been received at time of preparing this report.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications in this case.

Options

1.        To initiate a prosecution for failure to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice.

2.        To serve an Enforcement Notice for failing to comply with condition 1 of TCP/4526C as outlined above. Time period for compliance three months.

3.        To indicate to the owner of the property that the failure to comply with condition 1 of TCP/4526C renders the original planning consent invalid and consequently the continued use of the property as a dwelling house continues without the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority. That the use of the building as a dwelling house without reasonable measures to minimise the risk of flooding would be contrary to policy (Policy G6) and that his continued reluctance to submit a planning application to vary the original condition indicates that under enforcement would be an inappropriate response to the situation. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority should issue an Enforcement Notice with regards to the continued use of the building as a single dwelling house giving a time period to cease this use reflecting the severity of the situation of three months.

Conclusion

The planning condition was imposed to protect the occupants of the property from the risk of flooding which could threaten damage to property or at worst could be potentially life threatening.

Whilst the property owner has indicated that the size and nature of the existing doorway means it is not possible to obtain an appropriate watertight door to fit this opening, I believe there are other measures which could be considered and accepted as a substitute for the original requirement. It has been pointed out to the property owner by letter that, due to the specific nature of the condition, any request to waive the initial requirement for the watertight door and substitute this with other measures has to be undertaken through the submission of a formal application. Unfortunately, no response to this invitation has been made.

Given the nature of the condition which has not been complied with, I believe that the Local Planning Authority should pursue the matter further. There are three courses of action open. Firstly, the Local Planning Authority could prosecute for the failure to comply with the Breach of Condition Notice that has already been served. However, even if successful this would simply result in a fine being imposed without achieving the works required.

The second option would be to serve an Enforcement Notice for failing to comply with a planning condition. This would give the householder the opportunity of contesting the situation.

The third and final option is to indicate to the property owner that the failure to comply with the sole planning condition is being interpreted by the Local Planning Authority as an action which, by its nature, invalidates the basic planning consent and accordingly the residential use of the building is unauthorised. Furthermore, given the owner’s failure to respond to the invitation to make a planning application to vary the originally approved condition, that the Local Planning Authority does not believe that under enforcement would be an appropriate measure. Accordingly, in accordance with Policy G6 which seeks to protect land and property from flooding, the Local Planning Authority proposes to issue an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the building for residential accommodation with a time period of three months which reflects the need to resolve the matter with some degree of urgency.

Given the three options outlined above, I do not believe it would be appropriate to initiate a prosecution for the Breach of Condition Notice as this would not achieve the desired outcome and I am therefore left considering either options 2 or 3. On balance, I believe option 2 to be a proportionate response and recommend accordingly.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to seek enforcement action 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 of the unauthorised development on the occupiers of adjoining properties and on the area in general have been carefully considered. Whilst this action may interfere with the rights of the owners of 35 High Street, Cowes, it is considered that the recommendation to take enforcement action is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To serve an Enforcement Notice for failing to comply with condition 1 of TCP/4526C as outlined above. Time period for compliance three months.

(c)       TCP/16040/G                                                Retention of stream culvert, land at 16-20 Church

Road, Shankln

       Officer: Mr J Mackenzie                       Tel: (01983) 823567

Summary

To consider further action in relation to the retention of the culvert following the appeal against an Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of the unauthorised structure and works.

Background

In June 1996 planning permission was granted for a chalet bungalow at this site which abuts Church Road and in May 2001 a revised design was approved and subsequently, development commenced.

Neither the original scheme nor the revised submission authorised the installation of 8 metre length of culvert, although shown on the plan it was deleted from the proposals and form the subject of a separate application which was duly refused on 16 October 2001 for the following reason: -

1.        The retention of the culvert is likely to result in conditions which could adversely effect the efficiency of the existing land drainage regime of this part of the chine by the retention of a source of blockage and obstruction of a major water course which would be contrary to the principles of PPG 25 and policy U11 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

A subsequent application which, again, sought consent for the retention of the culvert but included the formation of a new driveway and turning area off Priory Road was submitted but was refused for the same reason as the previous application but two additional reasons were given namely: -

2.        The formation of an access drive, car parking and turning area in the chine and its use for the parking of vehicles would result in an unacceptable visual intrusion in this part of the conservation area contrary to policy B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

3.        The engineering operation to form the access road car parking and turning area would endanger trees which are available in this part of the conservation area and therefore the development would be contrary to policy B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

An appeal was lodged against the refusal decision of October 2001 and the subsequent Enforcement Notice which required the removal of the works within a period of 3 months, the works being the removal of all spoil infill above and alongside the pipe; the removal of headworks including railway sleepers and concrete at either end of the section of pipe; remove the sections of pipe and restore the water course and its banks to their original profile and contours.

The appeals against the Enforcement Notice and the refusal of planning permission were unsuccessful. The Inspector dismissed both appeals and upheld the Enforcement Notice and upon the date of the appeal decision, the Enforcement Notice became effective and the compliance period for the above works expired at the end of October 2002. The requirements of the notice have not been met and there is therefore a breach of the valid Enforcement Notice.

Following the receipt of the appeal decisions I have been approached by the appellant who is pleading to retain the culvert and associated works. Ordinarily, following the close examination of the case via the appeal system and the associated support of the Inspector, I would proceed to prosecute the non-compliance with the notice. However, I believe further consideration of the matter needs to take place before such action occurs.

The appellant has gained the support of the owner and operator of Shanklin Chine into which the stream flows. She is most concerned that the removal of the head walls, culvert pipes and fill material by the sides and over the culvert pipes is likely to result in significant amounts of silt washing into the chine and causing damage and, in addition, the removal of the works would result in a regime of further bank erosion thus destabilising the banks of the stream with similar effects.

In a letter from the agent on behalf of the appellant the applicant details the history of the site and the reasons for the request, a copy of his letter is attached.

In essence it appears that the appellant installed the culvert having been advised verbally by the Environment Agency that the works to install the culvert would be acceptable in 1.2 metre diameter concrete pipes, for a distance of approximately 18 metres (only 8 metres has been installed). The works were carried out but without the necessary planning permission and retrospective consent was sought but was refused as detailed above.

In support of the request to retain the culvert the agent advises Members of the following:

1.        The new culvert has at no time since its construction had any blockages – proven beyond doubt during the last year’s record rainfall figures. We all remember the countrywide flooding and yet this culvert performed admirably.

2.        In the unlikely event that this culvert did block, there would still be no risk of flooding to any property upstream.

3.        Culverts upstream are somewhat smaller than this one and far more likely to cause damage should they become blocked. Indeed, Mrs Springman and her staff were called out to attend to a blockage upstream – some quick action adverted a potential major flooding incident that would have been avoided had your Council properly maintained the culvert.

4.        The Environment Agency are recognised as the lead Authority on culverting, and they have now approved this particular culvert.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications for the Council in this matter.

Options

1.        To adhere to the previous decision and to require the removal of all works and to restore the banks of the stream to their former profile and to prosecute if the works are not carried out in accordance with the Enforcement Notice within the next 4 weeks.

2.        To invite the resubmission of an application for the retention of the culvert only, advising the applicant that vehicular access and the formation of a driveway to the rear of the site remain unacceptable.

3.        To invite the submission of an application for the retention of only part of the culvert and works sufficient to enable pedestrian access and to allow the retention of gabions installed to reduce erosion.

4.        To defer for one month prosecuting the breach of the Enforcement Notice and to carry out further investigations regarding drainage, erosion and pollution and to report back upon conclusion of the investigation.

Conclusion

The matter of the need for planning permission has been raised.

This is a matter which has been before Members and has subsequently been determined, at appeal, by an Inspector. Bearing in mind the appeal was against the service of an Enforcement Notice and the refusal of planning permission, the Inspector would have considered the need for planning permission for the development. In my view planning permission was required since the installation of an 8 metre length of 1.2 metre diameter culverting with approximately 1.2 metres of fill above and around it, together with the construction of a headwall at each end of the culvert is a substantial engineering operation. In addition I do not consider it could be construed as permitted development since, at the time the dwelling was being constructed, the installation of the culvert and its associated works took place. The land was therefore a development site rather than the curtilage of a dwelling and therefore no permitted development rights would have existed.

Unitary Development Plan Policy G4 expects planning applications to take account of ponds, streams and other watercourses whilst Policy G6 will not permit development where flooding problems could arise as a result of the proposed scheme.

PPG25 advises Planning Authorities to apply the precautionary principle to the issue of flood risk and advises that consideration of flooding is you should not be confined to river and coastal flood plains and that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material consideration and that the land concerned may be the application site or elsewhere where there may be flood implications.

Environment Agency policy states that culverting should not be considered until other options have been thoroughly explored. The Agency confirms in its written documents that it is generally opposed to the culverting of watercourses and wherever practical will seek to have culverted watercourses restored to open channels. In addition the Agency accepts that there are cases where culverting may, in practise, be unavoidable, such as short lengths for access purposes or where highways cross watercourses, but also indicates that alternatives such as bridges or diversions of the watercourse must have been rigorously considered.

In this instance, in the original proposal for the dwelling constructed adjoining Church Road, only pedestrian access to the parking area was proposed but in the later application a new access road and the infilling of the substantial area of land around the culvert was proposed to allow vehicular access.

Strong representations have been received from the owner of Shanklin Chine who also has riparian rights in relation to the watercourse which eventually discharges into the Chine. It seems the owner of the Chine was not notified of the receipt of the application, claiming that her rights were not considered during the processing of the applications. She strongly supports the appellant stating that the culvert and associated works have given this part of the Chine protection, have stabilised the banks where substantial erosion has occurred and developing the site has discouraged adjoining owners dumping rubbish in the Chine.

In summary, planning permission has been granted for the erection of a dwelling on part of the site with pedestrian to Priory Road to access the parking area for that dwelling. The unauthorised engineering works to install the 8 metre length of 1.2 metre diameter culvert and the infilling of the land surrounding it has been refused and dismissed on appeal with the Inspector upholding the Enforcement Notice requiring the culvert’s removal. The further information now submitted claims that the works are beneficial and that the requirements of the Notice to remove all of the unauthorised works will cause untold damage downstream in Shanklin Chine which is to receive an environmental designation.

There appear to be factors in this matter which have not been raised until after the appeal decision was made and therefore, under the circumstances, it is felt appropriate that prosecuting the non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice is deferred and further investigations take place with regard to drainage, pollution and erosion before any further action is taken.

Recommendation

To defer for one month prosecuting the breach of the Enforcement Notice and to carry out of further investigations regarding drainage, erosion and pollution and to report back upon conclusion of the investigation.

(d) TCP/22646         Outline for non-food retail unit and garden centre with associated car park, service access, access road off Riverway and cycleway/footpath links to Little London and Riverside Centre (revised plans) (readvertised application), land north of Medina Way, east of Riverway and between Hurstake Road and The Quay, Newport

Officer: Mr C Boulter                                   Tel: (01983) 823568

Summary

To consider amendments to the proposed heads of agreement for inclusion within a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and alterations to the agreed conditions, as requested by the applicants.

Background

Members may recall that at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 27 November 2001, it was resolved as follows:

“THAT application TCP/22646 outline for non-food units with associated parking and service areas and access road off Riverway, land north of Medina Way, east of Riverway and between Hurstake Road and The Quay, Newport be approved subject to a legal agreement regarding a contribution of £8000 to public art and £28000 to off site sustainable transport works, payable prior to commencement of the works approved and conditions to ensure the provision of cycle/pedestrian links from the site to Little London and Riverside prior to the occupation of the retail units, which must be no smaller than 929 square metres floor area.”

The conditions agreed by Members required certain operations or provisions to be carried out either prior to commencement, or prior to occupation or the bringing into use of the units. In summary, the requirements were as follows:

Prior to commencement:

·          Submission of a schedule of materials (condition 10).

·          Submission of samples of agreed materials (condition 11).

·          Details of location, construction and appearance of boundary walls to service yard and garden centre areas submitted and approved by LPA (condition 12).

·          Details of alterations to provide right turn lane and pedestrian refuge in Riverway submitted to and approved by Local Planning Authority (condition 13).

The following items were to be resolved/completed prior to the occupation or bringing into use of the retail units approved:

·          Disposal of material outside site or as part of agreed landscaping (condition 9).

·          The construction of agreed boundary walls (condition 12).

·          Completion of the right turning lane and pedestrian refuge in Riverway (condition 13).

·          Construction of service yard/car parks in accordance with agreed details (condition 14).

·          Completion of cycleway and footway links to Little London/Riverside in accordance with the approved plans (condition 15).

·          Provision of bicycle parking in accordance with the agreed scheme (condition 16).

·          Provision of turning for delivery vehicles (condition 18).

The applicants and proposed developers, who are a company presently operating from the site, have now indicated they wish to phase the proposals in order to allow them, as far as possible, continuous trading.

As Members will see from the plan attached (Appendix A) the proposal is to construct 2 separate units of retail accommodation. The applicant’s proposal is to construct the northern most unit first of all, which would allow him to move his business operation from its present site into the new unit, prior to the demolition of the existing buildings which would make way for the construction of the new units on the southern part of the site.

Whilst this is agreed to be a logical programme for construction, the applicants advise that the requirement to pay contributions to art and sustainable transport, totalling £36000, prior to any commencement of works is unduly onerous and suggest that the payment could be made prior to the occupation of the first of the new units constructed on the site.

Similarly, the applicant suggests that the requirements to provide all the road infrastructure, cycleway/footway links, boundary walls/car parks prior to occupation of all of the units, would prevent the type of phased development which is now suggested, which would lead to a significant gap in trading for the proposed developers. They have therefore suggested alterations to the conditions which would allow a phased development in the manner set out above. A copy of the proposed conditions, with the amendments identified in italics and the deletions crossed through is attached as Appendix B. In summary, the revised conditions would provide for the following:

·          The construction of boundary walls etc. prior to the occupation of the units to which they relate (condition 12).

·          The submission of details of works for construction of the right turning lane and pedestrian refuge in Riverway to include details of the timing of the proposed programme for works and construction thereafter in accordance with the approved programme (condition 13).

·          That new units shall not be occupied until service yards and car parking associated with those units has been constructed in accordance with agreed details (condition 14).

·          That the retail units should not be occupied until a programme of works for provision of the shared cycleway and footway as shown on the approved plans has been approved by the Local Planning Authority and that the construction of those elements should be in accordance with the agreed programme of works (condition 15).

Financial Implications

None.

Options

1.        To require that the development is carried out with the terms of agreement and conditions as originally resolved.

2.        To approve the amendments to the planning obligation and conditions as set out in the report and appendix B.

Conclusion

The issues raised in the suggestions for phasing of development put forward by the applicant have been discussed in detail with him and his advisers by the Council’s Planning, Highways and Legal officers. The conclusion is that the proposed alterations would allow a sensible programme of development to take place whilst still protecting the public interest through the provision of appropriate facilities for each stage of the development.

It is important to appreciate that the levels of highway alteration and cycleway/footway provision required for each stage of the development would be agreed with Highways Officers to ensure that the timing of relevant road works and infrastructure provisions are adequate to serve each element of the development as it progresses.

The payment of agreed levels of contribution to public art and sustainable transport will still be required albeit at a slightly later stage in the development than originally anticipated and whilst there is no reason to suppose that those contributions will not be forthcoming, the occupation of the first unit of development would result in breach of the agreement and potential prosecution, if the contribution is not made at the appropriate time.

In conclusion, it is thought that the proposed amendments to the wording of the legal agreement and the conditions will allow an appropriate phasing of the development whilst still protecting the Council and the public interest.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation, 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 of Human Rights. The impact the proposed development might have on highway users, visitors to the site and other members of the general public has been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights if the applicant to develop the land, it is considered that the requirements of the planning obligation and the planning conditions are proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

Recommendation

To approve the amendments to the planning obligation and conditions as set out in the report and Appendix B.

(e)       PROPOSED ARTICLE 4 (2) DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF SEAVIEW CONSERVATION AREA, SEAVIEW.

Officer: Mr L Byrne             Tel: 01983 823577

Summary

Members may recall the Article 4 (2) Direction for Seaview Conservation Area approved at the Committee meeting held on 2 April 2002. The purpose of the Direction was to preserve buildings which are recognised for their positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Direction itself enables the Local Authority to withdraw permitted development rights for a prescribed range of development materially affecting some aspects of the external appearance of a dwelling house.

The Local Authority served a Direction on the properties within Seaview Conservation Area on 2 September 2002. The Local Authority was obliged to give twenty one days for representations and within two months of serving the Notice has received no adverse comments. Members should note they are able to review the Direction totally or in part, following this consultation period before confirming the Direction.

In order for the Direction to remain in force, it is now necessary for the Committee Members to confirm the Direction within the six month period.

Background

In November 2001 Members confirmed the Article 4 (2) Direction in Carisbrooke Road, Newport. Support was given to the Direction after no adverse comments were received during the obligatory period for representation. Since the successful implementation of this Direction, the Local Authority have received no requests for compensation payments, have had no planning applications submitted in respect of these properties, and as a result of the Direction, the architectural integrity of these buildings remains intact.

In view of the success in Carisbrooke Road, Newport, the Local Authority proposed another Article 4 (2) Direction in respect of Seaview Conservation Area. This area survives relatively untouched by late 20^th century development such as satellite dishes and PVCU windows and doors. The introduction of such features, as well as other unsympathetic alterations to property elevations fronting the highway, could have an inverse impact on the late Georgian and mid-Victorian building stock which the Conservation Officer defines as giving the “general impression of the buildings being quality structures well maintained”.

Financial Implications

The service of an Article 4 (2) Direction can lead to claims for compensation under Section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The legislation permits a claim for compensation to be made by a person with an interest in land where he/she can show that there has been a depreciation in the value of his/her land as a result of an Article 4 (2) Direction being made and a planning application being refused for granted conditionally different to those contained in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. The claim period is restricted to twelve months from when the Direction was made and is intended to ensure that the right to compensation does not exist in perpetuity.

The Land’s Tribunal has made awards of compensation as a result of Article 4 (2) Directions, that these have been restricted to the loss of fourteen day temporary use of land, the loss of rights to divide land by the erection of fences to sell as plots and the removal of agricultural permitted development rights to erect buildings. There does not seem to be any recorded cases of successful claims for the type of restriction that the Council is looking to impose in this particular case.

Options

There are clearly only two options in this type of situation.

1.        To confirm the Article 4 (2) Direction.

2.        Not to confirm the Article 4 (2) Direction with the knowledge that the Council, as Local Planning Authority, in the majority of cases, may only have minimal or no control over unsympathetic alterations and/or loss of architectural detailing in respect of these residential properties.

Recommendation

To confirm the Article 4 (2) Direction.

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services