PAPER B1

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 2 MARCH 2004

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING 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 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 PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE –

2 MARCH 2004

1	TCP/01800/L P/02346/03 Metropole Hotel, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO38 1JS Demolition of buildings; construction of 3/4/5 storey building to form 11 flats, with a restaurant and retail unit on ground floor; formation of vehicular access and associated car parking.	Ventnor	Conditional Approval
2	TCP/02502/T P/01638/03 Solent Ice Cream Parlour, Bath Road and Marine Court, The Parade, Cowes, PO31 3/5 storey building to form 25 flats with commercial use on lower ground floor and parking at basement level (revised scheme).	Cowes	Conditional Approval
3	CAC/02502/U P/01657/03 Solent Ice Cream Parlour, Bath Road and Marine Court, The Parade, Cowes, PO31 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings.	Cowes	Conditional Approval
4	TCP/03377/Z P/02041/03 Sunnycott Caravan Park, Rew Street, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318NN Continued use of holiday caravan as permanent residence.	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
5	TCP/03886/T P/02332/03 land adjacent Pintiles, Binstead Road, Ryde, PO33 Renewal: 2 bungalows with integral garages.	Ryde	Conditional Approval
6	TCP/08111/K P/02448/03 Sandpipers Hotel and Eusemere, Coastguard Lane, Freshwater, PO40 Demolition of garage; removal of storage containers; alterations & extensions to provide additional bedrooms, conference & leisure facilities including additional foyer & storage space; change of use of Eusemere from residential to hotel use.	Freshwater	Conditional Approval
7	TCPL/10432/M P/02214/03 Durnford House Practice, 17 Melville Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332AF Conversion of doctors surgery to form 3 flats and 4 maisonettes (revised scheme).	Ryde	Conditional Approval
8	LBC/10432/N P/02215/03 Durnford House Practice, 17 Melville Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332AF LBC for conversion of doctors surgery to form 3 flats and 4 maisonettes (revised scheme).	Ryde	Conditional Approval
9	TCP/14371/J P/02187/03 Yarmouth Garden Machinery / Yarmouth Outboard, Mill Road, Yarmouth, PO41 0QZ Outline for residential development; alterations to vehicular/pedestrian access.	Yarmouth	Conditional Approval
10	TCPL/14420/U P/02256/03 The Teneriffe Hotel, The Strand, Ryde, PO33 Conversion of part of hotel to form 10 flats (revised scheme).	Ryde	Conditional Approval
11	LBC/14420/V P/02257/03 The Teneriffe Hotel, The Strand, Ryde, PO33 LBC for alterations in connection with conversion of part of hotel to form 10 flats, (revised scheme).	Ryde	Conditional Approval
12	TCP/18086/B P/01431/03 Lakeside, High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LJ Hotel & conference room with link to existing restaurant (Environmental Statement submitted) (readvertised application).	Wootton	Refusal
13	TCP/24782/B P/02464/03 Land south east of Osborne Works, Whippingham Road, East Cowes, PO32 Renewal: Use of land as commercial vehicle trailer park; use of land for emergency marshalling of cars.	Newport	Conditional Approval
14	TCP/25521 P/00644/03 Land north of, Redshank Way, Newport, PO30 Terrace of 7 houses to be used for holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (additional information relating to mooring allocation proposed & within existing marina)(readvertised application).	Newport	Conditional Approval
15	TCP/25652/A P/01500/03 Cats Copse, West View Road, Cowes, PO31 Continued use of land & building for paint ball games center.	Gurnard	Conditional Approval
16	TCP/26055 P/02523/03 8 Redwing Close, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305SW Outline for a detached house; formation of vehicular access.	Newport	Conditional Approval
17	TCP/26057 P/02558/03 10 Woodlands Crescent, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334JD Retention of boundary fencing.	Wootton	Refusal
18	TCP/26094 P/00191/04 Land between Spinlock Ltd and Bookers, Three Gates Road, Cowes, PO31 Industrial park with associated facilities.	Cowes	Conditional Approval

LIST OF OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON REPORT TO COMMITTEE – 2 MARCH 2004

(a) TCP/14463/D

Maryland, Colwell Chine Road Allegation of untidy land at Maryland.

Freshwater

TCP/01800/L P/02346/03 Parish/Name: Ventnor Ward: Ventnor West

Registration Date: 04/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Bunbury Ltd

Demolition of buildings; construction of 3/4/5 storey building to form 11 flats, with a restaurant and retail unit on ground floor; formation of vehicular access and associated car parking;

Metropole Hotel, Esplanade, Ventnor, Isle Of Wight, PO381JS

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

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

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at the March meeting will have been determined within the 13 week period allowed for major submissions.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Metropole Hotel is located on the western corner of the junction between Ventnor Esplanade and Esplanade Road and the site is currently occupied by a 3/4 storey building, one of the most prominent buildings on the Esplanade. Esplanade Road runs in a north westerly direction, rising steeply to its junction with Belgrave Road approximately 150 metres north west and a very much higher level. The former hotel is now vacant and has fallen into a state of disrepair.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Several applications relating to the hotel between 1975 and 1991.

More recently, in July 2001 an outline application for the redevelopment of the site for 22 flats was refused. The scheme, although in outline, involved parking and new vehicular access but all detailed matters were reserved for a subsequent application and was refused for reasons of loss of hotel accommodation and impact of the building on the character of the surrounding area and, in addition, the impact of increased use of access and Esplanade Road for access due to inadequate visibility.

Most recently application for the demolition of the building and redevelopment of the site with a 4/5/6 storey building to form 14 flats, 8 holiday flats, a restaurant with conservatory and for parking was approved in June 2003 and conditions were imposed, amongst others, relating to the retention of the holiday accommodation as holiday accommodation and limiting its occupation to a maximum of 6 weeks in any year by any individual.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent sought for demolition and clearance of the existing building and for its replacement with a single block, comprising 3/4/5 storeys providing 11 flats above a restaurant and retail unit on ground floor and for the provision of associated car parking with access off Esplanade Road.

The proposed building is shown to be a maximum of 13.5 metres deep, not including the bay windows, situated towards the front of the site incorporating a glazed arcade in a lean-to form reaching first floor balcony level. The ground floor provides two commercial units, one restaurant, one shop with floor areas of approximately 154 square metres each and segregated by an entrance hall leading to stairwell and lift. The first, second and third floors are identical in plan form comprising one flat with an area of approximately 97.5 square metres set centrally in the frontage and comprising 3 bedrooms, lounge, bathroom and kitchen, the 2 remaining flats on that floor adjoin at the sides and abut the rear of the central unit and, again, provide 3 bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and lounge. Those flats areas are approximately 110 square metres.

Floor four shows a single flat of 155 square metres comprising 4 bedrooms, lounge/kitchen and separate bathroom with access at western end onto a roof terrace and, includes part of the remaining unit on both 4th and 5th floor levels comprising a maisonette having a floor area of 143 square metres incorporating an internal, spiral staircase and access to a roof terrace at the highest level.

A lift and stairwell services all levels.

To the rear of the building, with a new vehicular access off Esplanade Road is car parking area set out for 11 vehicles, one for each unit.

In terms of materials all the main elevations are shown to be finished in render; the roof in slate but with hip tiles and ridge tiles; railings to the balconies shown as mild steel and painted, as would be the metal columns featuring as corners to the half octagonal balconies. On ground floor the lean-to glazed arcade would be aluminium framed patent glazing, supported on decorative metal columns creating the covered way across the whole of the frontage of the ground floor, behind which there would be 4 feature shop fronts, 2 to each of the restaurant and shop.

In support of the development, the agents have submitted a design statement which points out:

· that there is a consent for 8 holiday and 14 private flats on the site;

· that the proposal is to erect 11 flats but use the whole of the ground floor for commercial purposes;

· that the interaction of commercial uses on ground floor will generate employment;

· the design is in Victorian style to blend with general design in Ventnor;

· that shop use is appropriate on The Esplanade;

· the existing hotel is not viable;

· that the proposed development represents an important investment in the area and will result in an enhancement of The Esplanade;

· that the development will form part of continuing investment in the necessary refurbishment of this area;

· that the development ties in with the harbour development;

· that the development represents a reduction in drainage demands due to the reduction in number of bathrooms etc within the scheme.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown to be within the designated development envelope, outside of the designated conservation area. The building is not listed.

Policy T5 refers to developments resulting in the loss of hotel accommodation outside defined hotel areas and resists their loss if the premises are of 10 or more letting bedrooms unless there is a change to another form of holiday accommodation or the existing accommodation is upgraded or improved.

Policy H4 supports new residential development and redevelopment on sites not allocated, provided they are within the development envelope.

Policy H5 supports planning applications within development envelopes where they do not unduly damage the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Architects' Panel consider that the overall scale en masse was not dissimilar to the existing building and appropriate in this location, and that a landmark building would be appropriate on this site. Panel felt that the overall detailing of the building would be crucial, and original design was lacking and bland, with insufficient detailing. Panel were also concerned that the step roof line and roof design, incorporating some pitch and some parapets, lacked cohesion and was a weak element and a missed opportunity in designing a roofscape which would be appropriate to this location.

National Air Traffic Services - no safeguarding objections.

Environmental Health Officer points out that unconditional approval of this application may cause disamenity to neighbouring land uses or future occupiers of the flats above from the ground floor use as restaurant, citing noise and odours. Points out that the application does not contain sufficient information to assess properly those implications and, indeed, for that section to support refusal or support suggesting that a comprehensive noise assessment should be carried out and details of the range of foods to be prepared and sold from the premises. Otherwise recommends conditions.

TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

The Town Council see no reason why planning consent should not be issued in respect of the development.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

CPRE object, but accept the principle of redevelopment. Suggest that the replacement building is too high, there is inadequate car parking, and too much weight is attached to the harbour development in attempting to justify the redevelopment of this site.

Three letters of objection from local residents on grounds of the loss of a good, stable building; development which is too high for this site, higher than the original; development out of keeping; lack of affordable housing contained with the scheme, and development on unstable land.

Four letters of support from local residents.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there would be any significant crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

In June 2003 a planning application was considered, seeking consent for the redevelopment of this site with a 4/5/6 storey building forming 14 flats, 8 holiday flats, a restaurant, conservatory and parking facilities. That application had previously been considered in July 2002, at which time Members were asked to give an indication as to whether the loss of the hotel and the principle of its replacement with a mixed use development was acceptable, in order to give the applicant some comfort prior to incurring expenses regarding investigations of sub-surface stability to satisfy the requirements of PPG14. At that time it was resolved to advise the applicant that the development was considered acceptable in principle, and that the then scale, mass, design and appearance of the building were acceptable subject to Members being satisfied with regard to some outstanding matters as follows:

1. Financial justification for the level of tourism accommodation to be provided within the development.

2. Information regarding capacity of the drainage system in the area to enable the Authority to assess its adequacy to serve the proposed development.

3. Submission of development costs associated with the proposal to assure the Local Planning Authority that potential benefits to the area in terms of the tourism and the tidying up of the site justify setting aside policy requirements to provide affordable housing.

4. Submission of further information in respect of ground stability as recommended by the Principal Building Control Surveyor.

In the previous scheme the financial justification for the level of tourism, as a proportion of the other uses, was financially justified taking account of both demolition and construction costs, complications with ground stability, and finally it was concluded that any increase in the number of holiday flats would ultimately affect the value of the development, which would prejudice its implementation.

Information submitted and investigations with Southern Water addressed both foul and surface water drainage, and it was concluded that, with the exception of the restaurant, bearing in mind the number of dwelling units, it was felt that the capacity of the existing sewage in the area was of sufficient capacity to account for the increase proposed to be put on it by the 22 units and the restaurant.

Bearing in mind the development costs associated with the proposals, at that time it was concluded that the benefits to the area in terms of tourism and the tidying up of the site justified the setting aside of the policy requirements to provide affordable housing.

It was also concluded that, bearing in mind the extensive investigations carried out by the applicant's geotechnical engineer, development could be carried out at the site despite the inherent degree of land instability. At that time it was understood from the consulting engineers that, subject to appropriate foundation design, the continuing movement in the area is unlikely to present an unacceptable threat to the proposed development. In the light of those comments it was recommended that additional conditions requiring the submission of full calculations and detailed foundation design prior to work commencing on the site should be applied.

There is, therefore, a strong precedent for accepting development of this site, and determination of the current proposal must be made in the light of those differences seen between the current and the previously approved development.

Essentially, the current proposal is very similar in terms of height, massing and general appearance to that which was approved in June of last year. If anything, the mass of the building is slightly reduced since it does not project into the rear of the site to provide underground car parking as did the previously approved scheme.

Essential differences between the current proposal and the previously approved scheme are the number and size of the flats and the fact that no holiday flats are now proposed within the current scheme. Instead, the reduction of the intensity of the scheme, both in terms of site coverage and numbers of units, allows sufficient car parking to be provided at the back, off Esplanade Road, rather than beneath the building, with sufficient spaces for 11 vehicles, one for each unit. The omission of basement parking also allows the adjustment of the ground floor to coincide with the pavement level, and the inclusion of a restaurant and shopping unit on ground floor presents a more appropriate and acceptable façade in The Esplanade scene. The proposal also seeks to provide only 11 flats, each of much more generous accommodation, no holiday flats and no affordable housing.

Determining factors are considered to be matters of policy and principle, design, massing, scale and overall height, the issue of access and parking, the effect on adjoining properties.

In terms of policy and principle, the overriding main determining factor is that of the loss of the hotel and the redevelopment of the site without any holiday accommodation. It has been shown in the previous submission that the hotel was not considered even to be potentially viable and that redevelopment of the site would be expensive.

It is, however, felt that the introduction of a shop and restaurant with a "shop front" to The Esplanade is a positive contribution to The Esplanade's tourism bias and that, under the circumstances, the development will be acceptable and should be encouraged.

In terms of the mass, scale and height criticisms levelled at the proposals, it should be noted that, although it is accepted that the overall height of the building is, at its eastern extent, increased by one floor, in the main the height of the building is no larger than that which currently occupies the site and certainly no greater than that which was approved in the previous proposal.

In terms of design, the key to the success of this project will turn on the detailed consideration and revised plans received, detailing the treatment of the various elements appear now to be more appropriate, and I concur with the applicant's claim that the details reflect the Victorian character of Ventnor.

In terms of access and parking, one car parking space is provided for each of the 11 flats. Bearing in mind the location of the development, I consider one for each unit to be a satisfactory compromise.

As for effect on adjoining properties, bearing in mind the current proposal represents the redevelopment of the site with a building of similar mass and appearance to both the former hotel and the previous development approved last year, I consider the development will have no greater impact than either of those two examples. The development is considered acceptable and recommended for approval.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as detailed in the Evaluation section above, the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes with commercial/tourism uses on ground floor is considered to be an acceptable compromise in the interests of tourism, the character of the area, and produces a sustained form of development, consistent with Policies H2, H5 and T5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (covering letter to accompany the decision regarding ground stability issues)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Prior to any work commencing on site, including demolition of the existing building, full method statement providing details of the timing of the demolition of the building and the commencement of construction works, together with a detailed foundation design and full calculations, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any construction work would not adversely affect adjoining sites and that the development is capable of withstanding continuing movements in the area and to comply with Policy G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Construction of the buildings hereby permitted shall not commence until a Schedule of all materials and finishes to be used for the external roofing and walls of the same have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Thereafter only such approved materials and finishes shall be used in carrying out the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The building hereby approved shall not be occupied or brought into use until the external finish shown on the approved plans or agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing have been completed and the finish shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	The restaurant hereby approved shall not be brought into use until an extraction and ventilation system has been installed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall comprise a suitably sealed and fireproofed exhaust ducting installed internally within the building from the point of extraction to an extractor fan and then to a suitable point of discharge to the atmosphere, the height of which shall not be less than 1 metre above the bridge level of the building. The extractor fan shall be appropriately sized and proportion shall be taken to minimise the potential for disturbance to the residential accommodation within the building by reason of noise or vibration and, therefore, shall include appropriate acoustic housing, silencing and system design. The system shall also incorporate a pre-filled/grease filter, a carbon filter, deodoriser and easy access for cleaning and general maintenance. Reason: In the interests of amenities of the area in general, future occupiers of the development and adjoining residential occupiers in particular, and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	The restaurant hereby permitted shall not be open to customers between the hours of midnight and 0800 hours. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and the occupiers of the nearby properties and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Notwithstanding the provision of any Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order, the use hereby permitted insofar as it relates to the restaurant at ground floor level, shall be restricted to a café or restaurant, and there shall be not sale of takeaway hot food from the premises without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the acceptability of the alternative use and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	This permission shall not authorise the use of the restaurant for any purpose in Class A1 or A2 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order except with the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the tourism of the area, and to comply with Policy T1 (The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Prior to any work commencing on site, including demolition of the original building, a detailed design scheme, including calculations and capacity study, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, indicating the means of foul and surface water disposal. Any such agreed surface and foul water disposal system shall indicate connections at the points on the system where adequate capacity exists, or shall provide for attenuation measures to ensure that additional flows do not cause flooding or overload the existing system. None of the flats hereby approved shall be occupied, or the restaurant brought into use, until such agreed systems have been completed. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of foul and surface water drainage is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a space has been laid out within the site and drained and surfaced in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority for 11 cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that it may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	The access and crossing of the highway footway shall be constructed in accordance with the following vehicular crossing specification for light vehicles before the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use: Footway Construction (Strengthening for Light Vehicles) 1. Excavate to a minimum depth of 150mm 2. Construct the vehicular crossing in Class C30P/20 concrete to a minimum thickness of 150mm, properly compacted with float and brush finish. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/02502/T P/01638/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 29/08/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Aedifico/Cromwell Land Ltd

3/5 storey building to form 25 flats with commercial use on lower ground floor and parking at basement level (revised scheme)

Solent Ice Cream Parlour, Bath Road and Marine Court, The Parade, Cowes, PO31

See joint report under CAC/02502/U - P/01657/03

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Any A3 use of the ground floor shall not be open to customers outside 1000 hours to 2300 hours seven days a week. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and occupiers of nearby residential properties and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Prior to any A1 or A3 use being brought into operation the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended hours of goods deliveries and good dispatches, and the use shall not commence until those hours have been approved or amended as necessary by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and occupiers of nearby properties and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Prior to any A3 use becoming operational the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of the intended range of goods to be prepared and sold within the premises. Upon receipt of this information the Local Planning Authority shall within 21 days specify measures to be taken by the applicant for the treatment and extraction of fumes and smells from the premises. Such use shall not commence until these measures have been completed by the applicant and any odour control measures specified by the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained thereafter in the premises whilst the use continues. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and occupiers of nearby properties and in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy P1 (Pollution) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	If, upon completion of the development hereby approved, the developers do not have any specific users for the ground floor commercial units then temporary shop front structures shall be inserted in the form of hit and miss timber screening with a dark brown stain finish to be inserted between new pilasters or columns with fascia over. Such temporary shop front shall be affixed in position for a maximum period of 12 months, at which time they shall be removed and replaced by permanent shop fronts of design, construction and colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in compliance with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A3 of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) any A3 use shall not extend to the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the acceptability of a "takeaway" use and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Before any use commences which may involve the use of machinery, a scheme specifying the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and all works forming part of the approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. The work shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbours and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Any B1 business use on the ground floor shall be restricted to Class B1(A) only as defined in the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development Anywhere within Settlements) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
10	Submission of samples - S03
11	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the elevations of the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be. painted other than in such colours as shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) and Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	Before the development hereby approved is commenced detailed drawing at the scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed with the Local Planning Authority showing the details of the screen walls and balustrading. Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in compliance with Policy B6 (Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	None of the residential units hereby approved shall be occupied until the cycle parking provision indicated on the plans hereby approved is available for such use with such provision being retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the parking of bicycles compliance with Policy TR6 (Cycling and Walking) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Parking provision on site shall be restricted to the four spaces indicated on the plan hereby approved and no additional parking spaces shall be provided without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure parking provision does not exceed that which would be required under Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
15	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in respect of the private courtyard area and any other paved area, and these works shall be carried out as approved. Such details shall include colour and texture of any paving, furniture, lighting, schedule of plants noting species plant sizes, and implementation programme. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
16	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the design for floodgate and appropriate flood proofing measures to prevent inundation of the basement car parking area, including their subsequent maintenance, have been approved and implemented in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To minimise the risk of flooding and to ensure that the structural integrity of the defences is maintained in compliance with Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
17	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a suitable warning and evacuation procedure has been approved by the Local Planning Authority and any approved copies of the procedure have been passed to the relevant Fire and Rescue Service. Reason: To ensure that the proposed emergency access route into the site is maintained and remains accessible at all times in compliance with Policy G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
18	Upon completion of the demolition works a geotechnical investigation of the site shall take place which shall address the following. That the assumptions as to ground conditions and soil parameters made in the Malcolm Woodruff Ltd report be shown to be matched or exceeded by the conditions revealed in a thorough site investigation. That for the purposes of establishing security against land instability influences the investigation must include at least two boreholes positioned close to the intended line of the up-slope retaining wall and sufficient trial pits to establish the foundations arrangements of all immediately adjacent properties. Additional investigation may well be required to provide other design data not related to land instability concerns. That the basement retaining wall be designed according to the principles set out in the Malcolm Woodruff Ltd report using parameters confirmed by the site investigation, or according to such other more stringent principles as may be shown by the findings of the site investigation to be necessary. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with Policy G7 - (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan and in compliance with PPG14 (Development on Unstable Land).
19	Prior to any construction work taking place on the site the diversion of the existing sewer which runs through the site shall be completed along a line to be agreed. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory drainage system is provided in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
20	No surface water drainage shall discharge to the public combined sewer. Reason: To minimise risk of flooding and in compliance with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Development Plan.

CAC/02502/U P/01657/03 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle East

Registration Date: 29/08/2003 - Conservation Area Consent

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

Applicant: Aedifico/Cromwell Land Ltd

Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings

Solent Ice Cream Parlour, Bath Road and Marine Court, The Parade, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application has proved particularly contentious, raising a number of issues and attracting a number of representations, all of which warrant Committee consideration.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

These are major applications, the processing of which will have taken 22 weeks to date. The processing of these applications has gone beyond the prescribed period due to the complex issues involved, with particular reference to obtaining consulting geotechnical advice.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to existing three-storey premises having frontages onto The Parade and Bath Road and immediately to the south-west of the bandstand/public toilets/pump station building. Premises known as Marine Court accommodate a mixture of residential, commercial and a model railway museum. The south-eastern corner of the existing building immediately abuts a four-storey property known as Harbour House, which is a Grade II Listed Building. Harbour House itself forms a group of four properties, with the remaining three being three-storey in height and extend to the south-east, being properties Quayside, Claymore and Watts Cottage.

The existing building, in terms of its frontage onto Bath Road, is a mixture of single-storey and two-storey. Existing building has a direct frontage onto the footpath link between Bath Road and The Parade (between the building and the public toilets) with that boundary being in the form of a high wall with a pedestrian gated entrance.

Members will be familiar with The Parade, which is characterised by a mixture of buildings of various age, mass and scale, having a mixture of uses from residential, retail, commercial. The most dominant building in the area is Osborne Court. Finally, the former club buildings immediately to the south of Osborne Court are the subject of current development in the form of a three-storey block of flats.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None in respect of the redevelopment of the site, however a similar application was submitted in February 2003 which became the subject of protracted negotiation which ended in the application being withdrawn in April 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Detailed consent is sought for construction of a part three-storey and part five-storey with basement building, providing commercial accommodation at ground floor level where the building faces The Parade and Bath Road, with the remaining accommodation being in the form of 25 residential units.

Basement car parking for four vehicles will be provided with access from The Parade via a ramp located at the northern end of the site.

The proposal will cover a similar footprint to the existing building, having frontages onto both The Parade and Bath Road. An internal courtyard off Bath Road will provide access to the private housing units. Part of the upper floor residential accommodation fronting The Parade will cantilever out over the footway, and some amendment to the existing on-street public parking spaces is envisaged along the site's main seaward frontage.

In design terms the proposal is contemporary in style, having a horizontal emphasis, finished in the main in flue coloured render. Balconies and terraced areas are incorporated on its eastern and southern flanks.

The initial application has been the subject of some design changes as follows.

1 Bandstand elevation redesigned to give greater punctuation to the north-east corner, with fenestration and plan changes responding and reinforcing the relationship with the curved bay of the second floor above.

2 Further adjustment to the Bath Road elevation to reflect the change of street level in the roof treatment. Corresponding redesign of the corner element for this purpose, and also to resolve the balance of the elevation following the changes referred to in (1) above.

3 Indicative internal signage removed from Marine Parade elevations.

4 Roof profile has same frontage revised with adjusted separation of the main roof elements.

5 Elevation note added showing setback relationship of the proposed building with Harbour House.

Other alterations relate to the separation of the units on the top floor, breaking the skyline design and creating a view through the upper storey. Some amendment has also been included relation to fenestration design adjacent to Harbour House. The main elements of the scheme will be finished in flat roofs. The exception to this will be the affordable housing element, which is located on the Bath Road frontage and is in the form of 5 one-bedroom units, with this element being more traditional in character, incorporating pitched roofs.

The application is accompanied by a supportive letter from a Housing Association, with the five units being transferred to that registered social landlord. Such provision will need to be the subject of a Section 106 agreement as a process acknowledged by the applicant.

Amenities within the scheme will be provided in the form of terraces and balconies, and screen walls have been introduced to prevent loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers.

In terms of uses, the ground floor accommodation is suitable for a number of uses ranging from restaurant or marine related commercial uses.

The application has been accompanied by a drainage investigation report and a desktop study which includes input from a geotechnical engineer. Ground investigation studies do not include information in respect of boreholes, which cannot be taken on site due to the existing buildings covering the site.

With regard to the contents of the drainage investigation report indicates discussion with Southern Water which has resulted in confirmation that there is an existing foul sewer in Bath Road.

The result of the investigation suggests that the public sewer beneath the Marine Court buildings could be abandoned, with any existing flows being diverted into the gravity sewer in Bath Road. Report acknowledges that a section of the public sewer would need to be retained beneath The Parade into which a private drainage system from the new development could connect.

In terms of disposal of surface water, report suggests that it may be feasible to drain surface water to the sea subject to necessary consents. The report concludes that "whilst every effort has been made to determine details of the sewers passing beneath the site and connecting drain runs, it should be appreciated that other drainage systems may be present which have not been identified by the works carried out".

In terms of the ground stability report, this concludes as follows.

The general geology of the area is well known. A model of the coastal slope has been built utilising information from a number of boreholes in the area. This has indicated that most critical slips exist above the site. Nevertheless it has been assumed that the slip does exist through the site and the forces that are required to be taken by retaining structure if there is to be no reduction in the factor of safety calculated. Providing the wall is designed to withstand these forces, which are not too onerous, then the proposed building will not affect, or be affected by, slope instability.

There are a number of other problems to be addressed during detailed design, particularly in the design of the basement. These have been outlined and are all capable of solution through careful engineering design.

Recommendations for the site investigation to be undertaken once the site has been cleared are given. Following this site investigation the design of the structure foundations, temporary works of the site stability should be reviewed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is located within development envelope boundary as defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The site is also within the Cowes Conservation Area and abuts a Grade II Listed Building as previously described.

National policies covered in PPG3 - Housing March 2000, with relevant issues as follows.

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

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

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

· Make more efficient use of land by adopting appropriate densities, with 30-50 units per hectare quoted as being appropriate levels of density, with even greater intensity of development being appropriate in place with good public transport accessibility such as town centre sites.

· Emphasis on need for good quality design.

· Document advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation, but should have regard to immediate buildings and wider locality.

· More than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unlikely to reflect government's emphasis on sustainable residential development.

PPG14 - Development on Unstable Land - raises the following issues.

· In relevant areas policies should seek to minimise the impact of landslides on development by controlling or restricting development where appropriate.

· Policies should outline the considerations which will be given to landslides, including the criteria and information requirement which should be used in determining planning applications. Where appropriate planning applications should be accompanied by a slope stability report which demonstrates that the site is stable, or can be made so, and will not be affected by, or trigger, landsliding beyond the boundaries of the site.

· Document states that it is not the Council's responsibility to ensure safe development, with that responsibility resting with the applicant and developers. Council must carry out best endeavours to ensure the site is capable of supporting the development without impacting on neighbouring property or land.

PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment - covers the following.

· New buildings should be carefully designed to respect their setting, following fundamental architectural principles of scale, height, massing and alignment, and use appropriate materials.

· Document emphasises that developer has a duty of care to ensure proposed developments in conservation areas both preserve and enhance those areas.

Relevant Local Plan policies are as follows.

Strategic Policies - S1, S2, S6 and S7 are appropriate.

Other relevant policies are as follows.

G1 - Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages.

G4 - General Locational Criteria for Development.

G6 - Areas Liable to Flooding.

G7 - Unstable Land.

D1 - Standards of Design.

D2 - Standards for Development within the Site.

B2 - Setting of Listed Buildings.

B6 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.

H4 - Unallocated residential development to be restricted to Define Settlements.

TR16 - Parking Policies and Guidelines.

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision.

Reference is also made to recent housing needs survey, the conclusions of which acknowledge the need for single person accommodation, although there continues to be an ongoing demand for two and three bedroom homes to meet statutory homeless requirements.

The site is located within Parking Zone 1 of the Unitary Development Plan which stipulates that no on-site parking, either operational or non-operational, will be allowed in this zone.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Highway Engineer has not objected to the provision of four parking spaces within the basement on the grounds that he observed at the time of the previous withdrawn application that four car parking spaces for use by residents of Marine Court existed within The Parade and were separate from the Pay & Display area, and that signage on the wall by the Model Railway building indicated that these spaces were private and for the use of Marine Court.

Highway Engineer critical of the lack of cycle store provision, requiring further under cover secure space to be provided.

There appears to be some dispute regarding the existence of these spaces with the Council's Car Parks Department, and I have sought further advice on this matter.

The location of the application within the Cowes Conservation Area required consultation with English Heritage, and their comments are summarised as follows.

Firstly, members are advised that during the processing of the previous withdrawn application a similar consultation took place, and the English Heritage comments were passed on the applicants.

A summary of points raised is as follows.

· Recognition that frontage onto The Parade and the approach from the north are important, and EH disappointed the proposal ideas do not include corner site in the design process.

· Reference is made to some confusion with regard to exact location of north, and therefore some features on the submitted scheme did not comply with those previous comments.

· EH considers that it is important to have a visually strong corner onto The Parade, particularly when viewed from the north towards the site. Proposal as initially submitted uses projecting balconies to form this corner, resulting in the building continuing rather than forming a clear turn, with the issue only being partially addressed by the sweeping curved element of the third floor. Considered that this curve should form a corner element through to the first floor, thus providing a more convincing turn.

· Visual relationship of the new build to Harbour House and the group of buildings adjoining remain unresolved. EH consider set back and change of height is much too abrupt and balcony height still does not relate well to the eaves height of Harbour House. Relationship not convincing caused by varying overall scale of the floors and fenestration in comparison to the group of adjoining buildings.

· EH concerned about the overall height and combined massing, with particular reference to the proposed fourth floor. The solid nature of the fourth floor obscures the grain of the gradual build of roofs and buildings that could characterise the incline moving inland from The Parade. Concern that the substantial height of Trinity Theatre and Princes Buildings will generally be obscured from view with the roofscape being levelled out. EH does not consider such a continuous flat profile to be appropriate to the current built context.

· Criticism of the reference to Osborne Court justifying mass and scale of other buildings in the area. EH point out that Osborne Court is essentially a one-off and does not represent the overriding scale and character of this area of Cowes.

· Recognition that the Bath Road elevations represent an improvement to the earlier scheme, although some concern regarding the line of the roof height, which should be reconsidered to defer to the roof context of the buildings to the south and opposite. They suggest the corner refers more to Bath Road in elevation materials, with the flat roof taking a cue from the possible thin eaves fascia treatment of the proposed buildings in Bath Road. Attention to eaves details will be important in this context.

· EH fully supports introduction of commercial retail and active uses to the ground floor, however signage will need to be handled carefully and they note that signs are intended to be internal.

· In summary, while as indicated earlier we are very supportive of a more contemporary, modern design in this location, we believe the proposals need to improve in order to create the landmark suggested in the applicant's statement.

Architects Panel comments are as follows.

· The Panel recalled that when the scheme was previously considered the overall impression of the building design was favourable.

· The Panel commended the proposal as previously.

· Comment was made that access for public and emergency vehicles would need to be considered.

· The Panel had no further comments on this application.

Southern Water confirm discussions relating to the development and their agreement to the principle of diversion of the sewers.

They also refer to their previous comments in respect of the withdrawn application, at which time they made reference to possible diversion being acceptable as long as it would not result in unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and that such works were carried out at the developer's expense.

They also advised that conditions should be included to ensure no construction work on the development should be permitted until the diversion of the sewer has been completed.

With regard to surface water drainage, they recommended that no discharge to the public combined sewer should take place. They confirm that there have been no unusual problems with sewers in this area, indicating a lack of capacity.

Council's Environmental Health Department recommend appropriate conditions in respect of any A3 uses that may take place on the ground floor.

Environment Agency recognise that the site is within an area identified at risk of tidal flooding and initially requested that deferral of any decision take place until such time as the applicant has provided further information in the form of a satisfactory flood risk assessment, which may then result in the agency placing an objection to the application.

Following this comment a flood risk assessment has been submitted, resulting in the Environment Agency raising no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions relating to design of floodgates, introduction of appropriate flood proofing measures to prevent inundation of the basement car parking area, introduction of a warning and evacuation procedure has been approved.

Applicant's ground stability report has been vetted by a consulting geotechnical engineer, the conclusions of which are as follows.

"From our consideration of the Malcolm Woodruff Ltd report we conclude that the development could take place without affecting, or being affected by, any adjacent land instability subject to the following conditions.

1. That the assumptions as to ground conditions and soil parameters made in the Malcolm Woodruff Ltd report be shown to be matched, or exceeded by the conditions revealed in a thorough site investigation.

2. That for the purposes of establishing security against land instability influences the investigation must include at least two boreholes positioned close to the intended line of the upslope retaining wall, and sufficient trial pits to establish the foundation arrangements of all immediately adjacent properties. Additional investigation may well be required to provide other design data not related to land instability concerns.

3. That the basement retaining wall be designed according to the principles set out in the Malcolm Woodruff Ltd report, using parameters confirmed by the site investigation or according to such other more stringent principles as may be shown by the findings of the site investigation to be necessary."

We would stress that we have not considered matters relating to the design of the foundations or of the basement to restrict adjacent ground strains, as in this case these are not related to the issue of land instability.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Cowes Town Council comment as follows.

Town Council support the principle of this application but would prefer the design to reflect visually the regency aspect of the old town. They also express concern that the removal of the Model Railway Exhibition as a tourist attraction on The Parade will be to the detriment of the town.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

The application being subject of nine letters of objection which includes two letters and two e-mails from the adjoining property owner, Harbour House.

The adjoining property owner in Harbour House raises a significant number of concerns which are summarised as follows.

· Marine Court is a building in desperate need of replacement.

· Concern that many people will not be aware that this is a second application and therefore will not have objected at the same level as occurred at that time.

· Reference made to a proposal for the development of the bandstand area, which was either withdrawn or refused on the grounds that the height was inappropriate, and writer considers that the same criteria should apply to this application.

· Writer considers the proposal is contrary to the Unitary Development Plan, making extensive detailed comments regarding both Conservation Area and Listed Building policies, policies relating to unstable land.

· Extensive reference made to the proposal being contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

· Writer questions the reasoning behind provision of four parking spaces, refuting that these spaces existed and making reference to the fact that new double yellow lines have now been placed immediately abutting the building, removing any possibility of such spaces now being used free of charge.

· Writer questions some elements of detail on the submitted plans where they impact on his property, suggesting that the second floor plan should include roof lines and terrace as does that of the third floor plan.

· The writer considers that there is some confusion regarding the terminology of floors.

· The writer considers it should be clearly stated the proposed building is significantly greater on the northern face where three additional storeys have been added where a single storey railway exhibition building presently stands.

· Writer considers that the design statement is inadequate in relation to this level of development.

· Some of the claims contained within the statement which accompanied the application have not been achieved.

This very long letter concludes with a summary, which is quoted as follows.

"This letter of objection is not based upon a dislike of modern development or an innate dislike to change. It is understood that English Heritage recognise that enhancement of conservation areas need not necessarily require the enforcement of continuity of character. A good historical design is as difficult to secure as good design generally, and there are many examples of anodyne and second rate historical pastiches that have failed the test of time. Conversely there are some very good examples, and the developers of Marine Court with their high architectural standards have already stated that 'if the locals want a pastiche they will get a pastiche'.

It is understood that there is government pressure to increase the number of households (the new proposal will double existing) and this particularly covers affordable housing (for which the application also makes allowances). However, this must be offset against the financial interests and pressures of large company developers where the larger the development on a given site the greater the returns. It is inconceivable, given the footprint area of this site, that a financially profitable development that is in keeping with the local character and roof lines of the neighbourhood, could not be proposed. Penthouse flats achieve the high sell value, and obviously the greatest returns to the developer at their height and mass are to the detriment of the neighbouring area and its local inhabitants and their human rights."

Writer considers the application should fail on the following points.

1 Its abutment to listed buildings and its close proximity to a further 10 listed buildings, and its significant negative effect on all of them.

2 Its increased height and scale over that of the existing building and the effect of this in terms of the adjoining listed building and those others, both within and without the Conservation Area.

3 No full stability report having been produced with this application in accordance with the Planning Guidance Map associated with the Coastal Slope Stability Study, Cowes to Gurnard, August 2000.

4 Facilities for off-street car parking in this case by the proposed provision of a basement car park is against the government policy for Zone 1 areas adopted by the Isle of Wight Council and has been refused elsewhere and in particular at the Cowes Combined Club. There is no substance nor justification to the statement that previous residents had a right to park adjacent to the building, and that this then allowed the introduction of integral parking within the proposed development.

Finally the writer, under a separate letter, makes reference to the potential impact on his party wall and the need for the applicant to adhere to the Party Wall Act, which is civil legislation, not legislation administered by the Planning Authority.

Some other points have been raised by other objectors which are summarised as follows.

Isle of Wight Society consider the following;

· Architectural style of the building will not enhance the street scene and will be over-dominant.

· The Parade will become a demolition and building site for approximately two years, adversely affecting the attractive areas for visitors.

· Large amounts of debris will be required to be transported by lorries, causing traffic problems along Baring Road, Place Road and Newport Road.

· Demolition can have serious effects on stability of adjoining properties.

· Soil extraction to create the basement may have an effect on general soil stability.

· Loss of car parking due to mobile office staff facilities, construction plant and vehicles associated with the project.

· Noise generated will affect all properties in the area, making particular reference to a nearby home for the elderly.

One objector is concerned about the inadequacy of the parking for the development, which will increase pressures for additional parking in an area which has already reached saturation point.

One objector considers the introduction of affordable housing units would not be compatible with the luxury type development occupying most of the blocks.

Objector also considers that more shop/commercial type accommodation should be provided in the Bath Road side of the development.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer has been given the opportunity to comment.

EVALUATION

An assessment of this application will be based on the following elements.

Principle

First consideration is an assessment of whether or not the existing buildings make a sufficient level of contribution to the Cowes Conservation Area to warrant resisting their demolition on that basis. I suggest that the opposite is indeed the case, for these are prominent buildings which make little or no contribution and therefore the principle of their demolition and redevelopment of the site is considered to be acceptable.

Secondly, the proposed uses, i.e. the commercial ground floor, residential upper floors, are considered to be appropriate uses on this urban brownfield site. With regard to the ground floor commercial uses, applicants clearly require an element of flexibility and therefore if members are mindful to approve I suggest appropriate conditions controlling either the A3 use and/or the A1 use. Either uses will assist in contributing to the economic vitality of Cowes, particularly in this area, which attracts a substantial number of tourists. Also the proposed uses will link readily with the general character of the area, which in itself is a mixture of commercial and residential.

With regard to the Cowes Town Council's concerns regarding the loss of the Model Railway Exhibition Centre, applicants confirm that they are contacting the existing commercial tenant and asking whether they wish to take up commercial units within the new building. This indicates the applicants are aware of the desire to retain this attraction, but this will be subject of commercial decisions.

Design, Mass and Impact

Having established that the principle of development is acceptable, design, mass and impact on the general area of the proposed development is probably the most important consideration in respect of this application. Letters of representation clearly indicate that there are mixed opinions as to whether or not the modern contemporary approach is acceptable as a matter of principle, without considering the actual details of the design.

Members will note that design advice in this case has been obtained, not only from the Architects Panel, but also through consultation with English Heritage. The Architects Panel were highly supportive of the proposal, having had the opportunity to consider the type of design on two occasions and significantly came to the same conclusion. It is important to appreciate that the Panel is made up of different architects on each occasion.

Secondly, the comments of English Heritage were more critical and have been the subject of direct negotiations with the applicants' architects. It is important to appreciate that English Heritage were "very supportive of a more contemporary/modern design in this location"... Whilst there will always be differences of opinion regarding modern architecture, I too support the principle of a more modern approach to developments on sites of this importance rather than go down the pastiche line. I therefore concur with the principle support given by both the Architects Panel and English Heritage.

With regard to the detail issues of concern raised by English Heritage, a result of the direct negotiations has been some adjustments and amendments to the scheme, and a copy of correspondence between English Heritage and the applicant suggest that these have addressed in the main the concerns, although English Heritage continue to suggest that attention to detail will be essential if the design is to be wholly successful. Again this would be an issue which could be covered by a condition requiring submission of such details, if members are mindful to approve the application.

Because the site is within a Conservation area then the main test is whether or not the proposal complies with the statutory requirement to preserve and enhance such areas. In this regard members' attention is drawn to the substantial development of luxury flats known as The Gloster to the north-west of this site which also took a modern approach and, I believe, sits comfortably within its setting, particularly given its close proximity to the Royal Yacht Squadron. Similarly, a similar recent development is nearing completion on the Combined Clubs site behind the bandstand, fronting onto Bath Road which, although not complete, has taken a more pastiche approach but which equally appears to sit comfortably, making a contribution to the area.

A second important consideration is the impact that this proposal may have on adjacent listed buildings, both in Bath Road and on The Parade.

There is no doubt that the proposed building does represent an increased mass and height to that which exists on the site. However, the proposed building contains a greater amount of articulation, and indeed the elevation is set back some 1.35 metres from Harbour House frontage as opposed to being directly in line with that frontage in respect of the existing situation. Also there is a gap of approximately 2 metres between Harbour House and the third floor structure of the proposed building, and the fourth floor structures are approximately 5 metres off the north facing edge of the adjoining listed building. Therefore, whilst the proposal does represent an increase of scale and height, the distances and articulation being provided are sufficient to ensure that the setting of the adjoining listed building is not compromised to a degree that would warrant a refusal recommendation.

Similarly, with regard to the Bath Road frontage proposal, this has retained a reasonable distance from the listed building (the Copper Kettle Restaurant) to respect the setting of that building.

With regard to English Heritage's detail comments in respect of this issue, I quote as follows.

"I note the balcony and rail is clearly lower than the existing eaves of Harbour House. I appreciate the substantial setback of the new in relation to Harbour House and accept the points made in our meeting mean that the windows therefore do not critically need to so readily align with those adjoining. However, despite the setback it is the balcony element of this block that rather gives over-emphasis to the horizontal nature of the block. It would be preferable if the fenestration pattern of this end block were slightly different to those adjoining so that the visual relationship with Harbour House was more subtle."

I have considered carefully the latter point of criticism within the above, however applicants consider that they have given this matter careful consideration and are of the view that such alteration would compromise, to some extent, the overall design concept of the building. I conclude, therefore, that it would be unsustainable to refuse the application on the grounds that the applicant has not adhered to the detail issues raised in respect of this matter by English Heritage.

Affordable Housing

Members will note that the applicant has, from the start of the planning process, accepted his responsibility to provide affordable housing within the policy, and indeed the application has been accompanied by supportive information from a Housing Association (Medina Housing Association). Given the type of development proposed, this approach is encouraging and therefore I am pleased to simply suggest that if members are mindful to approve the application it will be subject of a legal agreement ensuring provision of such affordable housing, and when those housing units will be delivered during the course of the development. These will be issues that would be the subject of negotiation during the legal agreement process.

Parking

Members will note that the proposal provides for four parking spaces in a basement situation, despite the site's location within Zone 1 where zero parking would be required. I have already alluded to the events which have led to this provision. Applicants are adamant that four private parking spaces were available outside the Pay & Display spaces and, as long ago as April 2003, the Highway Engineer observed that there appeared to be four car parking spaces for use by residents of Marine Court, and it was on that basis that the developers were advised that parking provision limited to four spaces could be deemed to be acceptable.

Council's Car Parks Department dispute the existence of these four spaces. However the applicants have stated in writing that "up until six months ago the commercial tenants had for many years parked their cars up against the Marine Court building itself. We understand that there was space for four to five cars to be parked in this way. Six months ago double yellow lines were put in around the building, thus depriving the tenants of these car parking spaces."

Applicants further confirm that the tenants confirm that no charge was made by the Council for these car parking spaces, and they suggest that established use of the spaces has therefore taken place over a period of many years.

A copy of this letter, along with a further request for comments from Highways, has been requested but to date these have not been received.

Members will appreciate the conflicting nature of the above information, and the difficulties I have regarding how the Planning Authority should address this issue.

The ultimate consideration has to be whether or not the application should be refused on the basis that it includes provision of four parking spaces contrary to the Zone 1 policy. On balance it is likely that some free parking spaces were available up until recently, and in this case I would take the balanced view that the provision of four spaces in this case is reasonable. Members will appreciate the difficulty of promoting sites with zero parking, for even these four spaces represent minimal parking provision bearing in mind the scheme is for 25 units. Members will appreciate the difficulty of promoting zero parking schemes in any event. Any future occupiers will be aware that this development does not provide parking provision essentially and that the immediate area is heavily controlled in respect of parking. Therefore it is hoped that this will influence the level of car ownership, although I accept this may not turn out to be the case.

Drainage/Flooding

Both these issues proved inconclusive in terms of information when the previous withdrawn application was being considered, however this second application has addressed both issues by submission of appropriate reports and, subject to applying appropriate conditions, has received the support of both Southern Water and the Environment Agency. I can do no more than note this support.

Ground Stability

It is this issue which has caused a delay in processing this application. The complication in this case is the impracticality of carrying out boreholes on sites, which was identified by the consulting geotechnical engineer acting on behalf of the applicant. That engineer called upon other evidence which has accumulated through other developments in the area, and has carried out his best endeavours to provide as much information as he is able. Incidentally, the engineer acting on behalf of the applicant is the engineer who normally acts as the Council's consulting engineer.

I am satisfied that the ground stability information has been fully examined by a qualified consulting geotechnical engineer (based in Southampton) whose conclusions have been reported above, and therefore I am of the view that the applicants have satisfied the requirements of PPG14 in this case, particularly given the site's location within an area which has been identified in the Cowes to Gurnard Coastal Slope Stability Study as requiring a full stability report as part of the application submission.

General

Whilst I appreciate the level and extent of objection and concerns being expressed by residents, with particular reference to the adjoining property owner on The Parade, I am of the view that this is an appropriate scheme doing justice to this highly prominent site, and that the general architectural approach is the correct one, likely to result in a building which will make a strong statement.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report I am satisfied that the proposals for this prominent site are satisfactory and that all issues have been addressed for the detail reasons indicated in the evaluation section, and therefore recommend accordingly.

1 RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL (Revised Plans) Subject to a Section 106 Agreement covering the provision of five affordable housing units, the payment of £18,750 in respect of transport infrastructure payments (25 x £750).

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The work to which this Conservation Area Consent relates must be begun within a period of 5 years beginning with the date of which this consent is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2 RECOMMENDATION - That letter be sent to applicants requesting the submission of a Construction Traffic Methodology Statement ensuring the site works are carefully managed to cause least disturbance and to draw applicant's attention to the need to address the Party Wall Act 1996.

TCP/03377/Z P/02041/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 12/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Wilkinson Tel: (01983) 823566

Applicant: Mrs V Crawford

Continued use of holiday caravan as permanent residence, (plot 12A)

Sunnycott Caravan Park, Rew Street, Cowes, Isle Of Wight, PO318NN

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application raised a number of significant issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which will have taken 16 weeks to the date of the committee meeting. The application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications due to the need to obtain further information from the applicants.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Sunnycott Caravan Park is located on Rew Street, Gurnard approximately a mile and a half from Hillis Corner with Comforts Farm Camping and Gurnard Pines Holiday Village in close proximity. The Site is a narrow strip within a predominantly residential street frontage with open fields stretching to the rear. Ground within the site rises gradually towards the west with the caravan, the subject of this application, in the far western corner of the park.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/3377X – An application was refused in April 2001 for the use of one caravan, (12a), for permanent occupancy by site manager. The reason for refusal was given that the site lies outside the defined development envelope for Cowes and Gurnard as shown on the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan and it was the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that insufficient justification had been provided to demonstrate why the caravan was required as permanent residential accommodation in addition to the bungalow which already exists on site. The proposal was therefore considered to be contrary to Policy H9 (d) of the Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Consent is sought for the continued use of holiday caravan 12A as permanent residential accommodation. The caravan has been occupied permanently since March 2003 when it was purchased from the previous owner of Sunnycott Caravan Park. The hardstanding and services are still within the ownership of the Park but the Caravan is owned solely by the applicant. A number of features have been added to the caravan increasing its degree of permanency and giving appearance of a permanent residence.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 – New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development

G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 – General Locational Criteria of Development

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

H9 - Residential Development Outside Development Boundaries

H12 – Mobile Homes and Residential Caravans

T5B – Loss of Touring Caravan and Tented Camping Sites

T10 – The use of Tourist Accommodation for Permanent Residential Use

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

None

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council raises no objection.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether occupation of the holiday caravan as a permanent residence would conflict with policies of the Unitary Development Plan and whether there are any factors which would outweigh any policy objection.

The application seeks consent to use one caravan within a site with a holiday occupancy restriction as permanent accommodation for an elderly couple who have lived in the caravan since March 2003, thereby resulting in the loss of holiday accommodation within a caravan park designated as a Permanent Holiday Accommodation site. Consequently, it is considered that use of this caravan as permanently residential conflicts with policies that seek to revisit the loss of holiday accommodation. In addition, approval of application would effectively result in a new dwelling in the countryside.

A letter has been received from a family member explaining that her elderly parents, who occupy the caravan, are in poor health and provides details of the circumstances leading to the purchase of the caravan and the lack of information they received in respect of the occupancy restriction, which applies to the caravans on site.

A letter has also been received from a local doctor confirming that, due to occupants advancing years and medical condition of one of the occupants, it would be inadvisable for her to vacate the mobile home and that such a move would be detrimental to her health.

Although personal circumstances would not, in the majority of cases, justify approval of planning permission for a development or use which is contrary to policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Circular 11/95 advices that where there are ‘strong compassionate or other personal grounds to justify making exception. In such a case the permission should normally be made subject to a condition that it shall ensure only for the benefit of a named person. In this instance, I consider that such circumstances exist and would justify the grant of permission for continued occupation on a temporary and personal basis.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to occupy the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the right of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest. In particular, it is understood that the caravan is currently the sole residence of the applicant’s parents and a decision to refuse permission would render them homeless and may cause further distress to them, detrimental to their health.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, whilst occupation of the caravan as a permanent residence conflicts with policies of the Unitary Development Plan regarding residential development in the countryside, the personal circumstances involved are sufficient to outweigh the policy consideration in this instance. In particular, I do not consider that approval of this application on a temporary basis, personal to the present occupants, would prejudice the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

This permission shall enure for the benefit of Mr and Mrs Baum only and shall not enure for the benefit of the land and the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued on the date when Mr and Mrs Baum ceases to occupy the land or by the 31st March 2007 whichever is the sooner.

Reason: But for the personal circumstances put forward by the applicant, the application would not have been approved.

TCP/03886/T P/02332/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Binstead

Registration Date: 24/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mrs A Pudan

Renewal: 2 bungalows with integral garages

land adjacent Pintiles, Binstead Road, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Cllr Fox, because of the general interest expressed by local residents.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken 14 weeks and 2 days to date. The processing of this application has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of planning applications because of officer workload and the need for Committee consideration.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This application relates to an irregular shaped site to the north-east (rear) of, and forming part of, the rear garden to a property known as 'Pintiles', which itself is situated immediately behind and accessed through Binstead Garage. Immediately east of site is a Scout Hall with a new residential development to the north-west at 'Pitts Haven'.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/3886J/M/197 - Outline for 2 bungalows and garages. Consent granted 28 February 1986.

TCP/3886K/M/6451 - Two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 18 July 1989.

TCP/3886L/MB/1870 - Renewal: Two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 8 March 1994.

TCP/3886M/P/00142/99 - Renewal: Two bungalows with integral garages. Consent granted 3 March 1999.

TCP/3886N/P/01898/00 - Outline for two pairs of semi-detached houses, two bungalows and five detached houses. Refused 28 May 2002 on grounds of traffic generation, unsatisfactory access and no provision for affordable housing.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application is for the renewal of two bungalows with integral garages originally approved in 1989 and then renewed in 1994 and 1999 which expires 3 March 2004. Submitted drawings are identical to those approved and subsequently renewed and show two detached three-bedroom bungalows constructed of brickwork under hip roof to be accessed over a new driveway along the south-western and north-western boundaries of 'Pintiles'.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

PPG3 (Housing) encourages efficient use of land in urban areas by promoting higher densities while also stressing the need for good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive, high quality living environments in which people would choose to live.

The site is situated within the development envelope for Ryde as identified on the IW Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Relevant policies are as follows:

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

S6 - All developments 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 - Highways considerations for new developments.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Council's Ecologist confirms that the site does have general value to wildlife, although no specific ecological features have been identified on the application site which would be directly affected by development.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received objecting on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

Impact on wildlife.

New homes at 'Pitts Haven' would be overlooked.

Inadequate access.

No further developments should take place until the drainage system has been upgraded.

May affect nearby brook.

Noise and disturbance.

One letter received confirming no objection.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

The site is within the development envelope and has been the subject of numerous consents for residential development, the most recent of which expired on 2 March this year. I therefore consider the principle of residential development to be acceptable and consistent with policies S1 and G1 of the UDP. The main consideration is whether circumstances have changed since the last renewal was granted in March 1999 which would justify refusing consent.

In this respect, Members will be aware that PPG3 (Housing) was issued in 2000 and the UDP formally adopted in May 2001. Both advocate higher densities in order to make efficient use of land in urban areas. In general terms, the application site would have the potential of accommodating a higher density of development, and two bungalows could in fact be regarded as inefficient use of this site. However, a larger number of units would pose difficulties in respect of access and traffic generation, hence the recent refusal of 11 dwellings. On balance, therefore, I consider refusal based on inefficient use of this site would be unjustifiable given that a higher density is likely to be unacceptable on highway grounds. It is considered that two dwellings as proposed would not significantly increase traffic generation onto Binstead Road, and therefore accord with policy TR7.

Another change in circumstances to be considered relates to the presence of a new residential development to the north-west, being separated from the application site by a brook and line of trees. Given these intervening features, coupled with a distance of some 30 metres between existing and proposed dwellings, I am satisfied that the development the subject of this renewal application would have an acceptable spatial relationship with its surroundings.

In terms of drainage, it could be argued that more dwellings are now connected to the mains system compared with five years ago. But again, this is not considered to be a significant change in circumstances and, in any event, surface water can be controlled by way of a condition in the same fashion as earlier consents for this site. The adequacy of foul sewage capacity can be addressed at the building control stage. Whilst the Environment Agency have not been specifically consulted in this instance, it should be noted that they raised no objection to the higher density scheme refused in May 2002.

With regard to wildlife implications, the Council's Ecologist confirms that circumstances have not changed significantly since he last visited the site in 2001. It is alleged that there are red squirrels in the area. However, the proposal should not result in the loss of trees and tree corridors should be maintained. This is not considered to be a significant issue with regards to red squirrels but a condition in respect of tree retention is recommended should Members be minded to grant consent. An objector also refers to the presence of badgers. The Ecologist confirms that this is the case and believes that the trail originates from a hole in the streamside bank just outside the 'Pintiles' boundary. This is some distance from the proposed development but does require further investigation by a badger expert. I therefore recommend that a condition be imposed, should Members be minded to grant consent, requesting that a report on badger use of the site be submitted by an appropriately qualified person prior to development taking place.

In summary, whilst recognising that there has been a change in circumstances, I do not believe that this is of such significance as to render this development contrary to policy.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations as discussed in this report, I am of the opinion that circumstances have not changed significantly to justify refusing this renewal application, and therefore take the view that the proposal is consistent with Development Plan policies, particularly G4, D1, D2, H4, H5 and TR7. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Detail external roofing/facing finishing - S02
3	Provision of turning area - K40
4	The development shall not be brought into use until a maximum of 4 parking spaces including garages has been provided within the curtilage of the site and thereafter all of those spaces shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No dwelling shall be occupied until those parts of the roads and drainage system which serve that dwelling have been constructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of roads, etc, design and constr - J01
7	No trees on the site at the date of this permission shall be felled, topped, lopped, uprooted or destroyed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until an investigation relating to badger activity has been carried out by a suitably qualified and competent person and a report submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall only proceed in accordance with the agreed scheme. Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to a protected species and to comply with Policy C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/08111/K P/02448/03 Parish/Name: Freshwater Ward: Freshwater Afton

Registration Date: 10/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Fat Cat Trading Ltd

Demolition of garage; removal of storage containers; alterations & extensions to provide additional bedrooms, conference & leisure facilities including additional foyer & storage space; change of use of Eusemere from residential to hotel use

Sandpipers Hotel and Eusemere, Coastguard Lane, Freshwater, PO40

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application which has attracted a number of letters of representation and raises a number of issues to be resolved.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken twelve weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications as outstanding consultations have only recently been received and this is the first available committee, since receipt of these comments, at which the matter could be considered.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to hotel premises and adjoining residential property located on south eastern side of Coastguard Lane, immediately adjacent public car par within Freshwater Bay with Afton Marsh to north of site. Car park to the hotel is located to the east of the building with access off the public car park whilst the bungalow has vehicular access directly from Coastguard Lane.

Hotel is relatively large building providing a mix of single, two and three storey accommodation constructed of brick, painted in a cream colour, under a slate roof. In contrast, the adjacent residential property (Eusemere), which forms part of the application site, is a low profile single storey flat roofed building with roughly triangular footprint, having little or no architectural merit.

Public footpaths run along northern boundary of the hotel premises and also through the cartilage of the property and adjacent boundary to the neighbouring bungalow. The area is characterised predominantly by residential properties and the application site is one of two hotel premises within the immediate locality, the other being the Albion Hotel, which is a substantial building dominating the bay.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/8111E/P/00423/97 - Planning permission for formation of car park with access off adjacent public car park conditionally approved May 1997.

TCP/9235B/RD/7638W – Planning permission for erection of bungalow at land off Coastguard Lane conditionally approved September 1972.

TCP/9235C/SB/1147 – Planning permission for first floor extension to dwelling refused January 1975 on grounds that the addition of an upper storey to the dwelling as proposed would detract from the visual amenities of the adjacent residential properties and would be prejudicial to the character of the area.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal involves demolition of garage and removal of containers within cartilage of Eusemere and alterations and single/two storey extension to the hotel to provide additional accommodation. The extension to the hotel would encapsulate the adjacent bungalow and would provide additional facilities and accommodation to include conference and leisure facilities, foyer, storage area, toilet facilities, 13 guest bedrooms (all with en-suite facilities) and self-contained flat with sun terrace. Application also includes relatively minor single storey extension to enlarge the existing foyer area to the hotel. Proposal would result in the change of use of and loss of the dwelling.

Submitted plans indicate that the existing leylandii hedge/trees along the southern boundary would be removed and replaced with a new beech and/or hawthorn hedge, which would also run along the eastern boundary. Plans have also been submitted showing provision of 23 parking spaces within car parking area, excluding those allocated to serve development recently approved at the end of Coastguard Lane.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is shown on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan to be within the development envelope and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent the Heritage Coast. Afton Marsh to north of site is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Nature Reserve. 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.

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.

G6 – Development in Areas Liable to Flooding.

D1 – Standards of Design.

T1 – The Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season.

T3 – Criteria for the Development of Holiday Accommodation.

H8 – Loss of Dwellings.

C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C10 – Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

TR7 – Highway Considerations for New Development.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway engineer comments that if the existing car park can accommodate 23 vehicles, it would be difficult to justify a recommendation for refusal on the potential additional parking demand generated by the small conference room and new bedrooms, as there is a likelihood that a proportion of attendees will be staying at the hotel. He requested submission of plan showing layout of spaces within the car park to assure him that it can accommodate 23 vehicles. He also pointed out that there are unresolved issues regarding the hotel's right to increase the usage of the access to the site from the adjacent public car park owned by the Council.

Highway Engineer commented that the existing T-junction where Coastguard Lane joins the classified Gate Lane is well below the required 4.5 x 90m visibility splay. Any intensification of this sub-standard junction is unacceptable and he has concerns that as the size of the hotel increases, there is an increased likelihood of new arrivals trying to access the hotel car park via Coastguard Lane. In addition, he suggests that condition should be imposed on permission banning any construction traffic using Coastguard Lane or alternatively some temporary traffic management measures implemented that would assist in the safe movement of vehicles. He also suggests that Property Services section should be consulted regarding access over the public car park.

Property Services advise that owners of Sandpipers Hotel have a licence to allow themselves and guests staying at the hotel to access the property over the public car park and that this was based on a limited usage. They consider that the various proposals for development will increase the access requirement significantly to an unacceptable level on the basis that the flow of traffic through the car park will be dangerous to the people using the area as well as restricting public use of the facility.

AONB Officer comments that site is well screened by tamarisk bushes surrounding the tarmac car park. He considers that there is little architectural merit to the present residential property and adds little to the special character of Freshwater Bay and the AONB. He welcomes the indication that the applicant intends to harvest rainwater for recycling and indicates that there is no strong objection to this scheme but raises the following observations/concerns:

· Increased footprint and height of the building on site currently occupied by Eusemere will be more visible.

· Concern expressed regarding footpath F53 which passes in front of Sandpipers – not shown on plans. Would not wish to see this path stopped up. Suggested that comments of Rights of Way section are sought.

· The existing screening of the site afforded by the mature vegetation in the area should be retained and where appropriate improved as part of the scheme. Alternatively a more detailed scheme should be submitted to the authority along with details of building materials as stated in the application.

Rights of Way Officer comments that the works do not appear to affect the footpath in any major way. They seek assurance that the surface of the footpath will not be damaged during the construction work and advise that this has been addressed in a letter directly to the applicant’s agent.

English Nature advise that there main concern is that development does not result in the need for further coastal protection works which may interfere with coastal processes and damage the nature conservation interest features of the nearby SSSI/cSACs. In this instance, it is not considered that proposal is likely to add significant weight to the case for future protection works due to a substantial number of adjacent properties and the road which is protected by existing coastal protection works. Having regard to these factors, English Nature advise that proposal is unlikely to have significant effect on the interest features of the cSAC and will not require appropriate assessment. In addition, it is not considered that the wider interest features of the SSSI are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal.

Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposed development.

Southern Water advise that the sewers in this area are designated as a combined system and that they would prefer to remove as much surface water from the sewers as the excess rainwater can cause flooding. I am advised that there is one recorded incident of flooding on the application site due to the sewers being overloaded, and a flooding incident due to the nearby pumping station breaking down. Southern Water have confirmed that disposal of the swimming pool water would require the grant of a trade effluent licence and any disposal of wash water or draining off would require their consent.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Freshwater Parish Council object on grounds of over development. They also seek clarification of the route of the access to the Gate Lane Co-operative development at the end of Coastguard Lane. This issue is unrelated to the current proposal and is not considered to be relevant to the determination of the application.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters received from local residents and one from the mainland objecting to proposal on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Over development

· Residential area unsuitable for conference centre

· Increased traffic and congestion in Gate Lane and quiet country lane/cul-de-sac

· Increased noise and nuisance to local residents

· Detrimental effect on Afton Marsh designated as SSSI

· Loss of a private residence (Eusemere)

· Previous application for a two storey building turned down on grounds that site subject to flooding – footings dug out to depth of six feet on building

· Adverse impact on nature and environment of Freshwater Bay designated as AONB

· Loss of vegetation

· Coastguard Lane, private unmade road, unsuitable for additional traffic. Lane floods and has poor visibility at junction with Gate Lane.

· Proposal will double number of bedrooms and fill major part of garden with additional facilities – site not large enough to support extra trade

· Car parking inadequate – use of adjacent car park would be against public interest

· Adequacy of drainage is questioned on site so close to fragile ecosystem

· Outline planning permission already granted for development at the end of Coastguard Lane presenting risk to Afton Marsh

· Concern that access over footpath immediately adjacent site may be effected

· Extension of small hotel as proposed may set precedent – no evidence of need for development in this area – already sufficient conference facilities at the Albion Hotel and elsewhere in the West Wight

· Number of large developments already taken place in Freshwater Bay – disadvantages of proposal outweigh any advantages to the Island and local residents

One resident objects to proposal on grounds that it will affect property values in the area. This is not a valid planning objection and cannot be quantified.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether the proposal is of an appropriate design, scale and mass for site and the locality in general or whether proposal would detract from the amenities of the area and residents adjacent the site. Implications of likely increase in traffic movements/parking requirements are also considered to be relevant.

Addition represents relatively significant extension to the original buildings and will inevitably increase the visual impact of the property within the landscape. However, the extension is considered to be well designed and proportioned and in keeping with the original hotel premises. In particular, the design of the extension incorporates gable features and window/dormer elements, which cut through the eaves line of the building, reflecting the general character and appearance of the host property. Furthermore, the accommodation at first floor level within southernmost part of the extension would be predominantly within the roof space and this aspect of the proposal is linked to the hotel by a single storey element and I do not consider that the extension will dominate the original building. Having regard to these factors and subject to the extension being constructed in appropriate materials, I am satisfied that extension will be in keeping with the local vernacular and will not detract from the amenities of the area.

A previous proposal, refused planning permission in 1975, involved the provision of first floor accommodation to the existing bungalow and would have resulted in a two storey flat roofed dwelling, of no architectural merit, which would have been totally out of keeping with the surrounding properties and detrimental the amenities of the area. It is for these reasons that permission was refused and not that site is subject to flooding, as suggested by objectors to the current application. In this respect, it should be noted that Environment Agency have raised no objection in respect of current proposal.

Submitted plans show removal of a leylandii hedge/trees along the southern boundary, which presently forms a dense natural growth screen. Removal of this tree line will inevitably open up the site making it more visible from adjoining properties and public areas within the bay. However, leylandii are not native to the area and this hedge has become somewhat overgrown. Therefore, I consider that removal of these trees and the replanting of a hedge comprising appropriate indigenous species would enhance the appearance of the landscape. Furthermore, whilst extension would be relatively close to boundary with the neighbouring property, the trees along the boundary are quite oppressive and their removal is likely to be to the benefit of the occupants of the adjacent dwelling by increasing the light to the property.

Coastguard Lane is an un-adopted, unmade road with poor visibility at its junction with Gate Lane and is clearly inadequate to accommodate the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated by this proposal. However, the hotel has the benefit of a car park, which is accessed over the public car park within the bay. Plans have been submitted indicating that parking for a total of 29 cars, to include 6 for approved development on an adjacent site, can be provided with only minor alterations to the existing car park. This is considered to be an adequate level of parking to serve the accommodation within the existing hotel and that to be generated by the extension. In particular, whilst proposal incorporates conference facilities, this would be able to accommodate a limited number of delegates and is therefore unlikely to generate significant vehicle movements to and from the site. Whilst the Property Services department have indicated that existing licence for access across the public car park was granted for a limited usage, this is a matter to be resolved between the applicant and the relevant department of the council.

It is understood that deliveries to the hotel would still take place from Coastguard Lane, although I do not consider that proposal will increase significantly the volume of such traffic movements. In terms of construction traffic, Highway Engineer has suggested that a traffic management system is implemented at the junction of Coastguard Lane and Gate Lane for the duration of the building operations. However, it is difficult at this stage to determine the level of vehicle movements likely to be generated by these operations and whether provision of measures such as temporary traffic lights would be justified. In any event, such measures would, in my opinion, only be necessary when bulk delivery of materials takes place and would avoid unnecessary disruption of traffic flows within the Bay. Therefore, I would suggest that, should members be minded to approve the application, permission is subject to a condition, requiring applicant to submit details of likely numbers and times of deliveries associated with construction work and implementation of appropriate measures for control of traffic, relative to the vehicle movements involved.

In order to protect the housing stock, Policy H8 of the UDP seeks to resist the loss of dwellings, especially those available to people not easily able to compete in the housing market. In this instance, I do not consider that the property in question would fall into this category and loss of a single property would not have a significant effect on the housing stock. In any event, current proposal is supported by other policies of the plan and would produce potential benefits for the local economy and wider tourist economy of the Island, which would outweigh the loss of this dwelling. Whilst objectors question the need for the accommodation provided by the development and suggest that there is already sufficient provision of facilities in the area, this is not relevant to the consideration of the application and would not justify refusal of the planning permission.

Information provided in the submission indicates that surface water from the development would be stored and recycled. This would effectively act as an attenuation system and would limit flows of surface water to the combined drainage system to a minimum. The applicant would have a right to make a connection to the public sewers and it is ultimately the responsibility of the service provider to address any problems which may exist.

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 the other property in the area and other third parties had been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people, this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there is an interference with the rights of others it is considered necessary for the protection of the rights and freedom of the applicant. It is also considered that such action is proportional to the legitimate aim of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the area, designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or nearby occupiers. In particular, I am satisfied that the extension is of an appropriate scale, design and general appearance, in keeping with the host property and the area in general. The proposal would be likely to generate higher number of vehicle movements at the site, although information provided in support of application would suggest that adequate parking can be provided to serve the development. However, this will obviously lead to an intensification in the use of the adjacent public car park to access the site and I do not, therefore, consider it unreasonable to require the applicant to provide details of a scheme to identify a safe route across this car park in the interests of the safety of other users of this facility.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Before the development commences a landscaping and tree planting scheme and details of other hard surfacing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall specify the position, species and size of trees to be planted, the phasing and timing of such planting and shall include provision for its maintenance during the first 5 years from the date of planting. Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the extension hereby approved being brought into use or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Prior to work commencing on site, details of vehicle movements associated with the construction of the extension hereby approved, together with appropriate traffic management measures at the junction of Coastguard Lane and Gate Lane, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the traffic management measures shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details for the duration of the construction work. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to work commencing on site, details of the method of disposal of surface water and the proposed rain harvesting/grey water system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the extension shall not be brought into use until such time as the agreed system, or such other agreed measures, have been implemented. Reason: In order to ensure adequate means of disposal of surface water and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	All material excavated as a result of general ground works including site levelling, installation of services or the digging of foundations, shall not be disposed of within the area identified in red on the submitted plans. The material shall be removed from site prior to the building proceeding beyond damp proof course level. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Prior to the extension hereby approved being brought into use, a detailed scheme for the layout of parking spaces within the adjacent public car park, identifying a safe route between the public highway and the entrance to the hotel car park, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme. Reason: In the interests of safety of users of the public car park and to comply with Policies D1 (Standards of Design) and TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	The occupation of the self-contained flat at the first floor level within the extension hereby approved shall be limited to the owner, manager or persons employed at the Sandpipers Hotel and to any resident dependents of such a person. Reason: The unit of accommodation is not in a satisfactory position in relation to the main buildings to be occupied separately from the hotel premises and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to the extension hereby approved being brought into use, 23 parking spaces for use by customers and visitors/guests to the property shall be laid out and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the plan attached to and forming part of this Decision Notice. Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCPL/10432/M P/02214/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 20/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Wych Way Estates Ltd

Conversion of doctors surgery to form 3 flats and 4 maisonettes (revised scheme)

Durnford House Practice, 17 Melville Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332AF

See joint report under LBC/10432/N - P/02215/03

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The parking provision to be provided shall not exceed 4 spaces as indicated and those spaces shall be laid out in accordance with the plans hereby approved and shall be kept available for such purposes. Reason: To ensure maximum off street parking provision is provided in compliance with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site for a secure and covered parking of a minimum of 7 bicycles. Such provision shall be made in the form of Sheffield Hoops unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate provision of the parking of bicycles to comply with Policy TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Provision of turning area - K40
5	Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved the doctors parking bays in Melville Street, Ryde shall be removed at the developers expense and any necessary reinstatement works undertaken in line with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in compliance with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to commencement of works a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted in respect of the parking area abutting the north facing elevation and any such landscaping scheme shall include for raised planters to enclose the 4 parking spaces indicated on the plan hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Before the development hereby approved in commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing the interior alterations in respect of staircases, doors and door cases, mouldings, skirtings, decorated ceilings, cornices and any other features deemed to be appropriate in the interests of the architectural integrity of the building. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policies B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	Before the development hereby approved is commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing the proposed new external doors and windows and such details shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained thereafter. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
9	All existing feature fireplaces shall be retained and shall not be removed or altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority showing the construction and design of the covered cycle parking provision which shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character of the Listed Building in compliance with Policy B2 (Setting of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

LBC/10432/N P/02215/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 11/11/2003 - Listed Building Consent

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

Applicant: Wych Way Estates Ltd

LBC for conversion of doctors surgery to form 3 flats and 4 maisonettes (revised scheme)

Durnford House Practice, 17 Melville Street, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO332AF

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application relates to proposals which have been the subject of a recent refusal and which has been particularly contentious raising a number of issues all of which require Committee determination.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application the processing of which has taken 16 weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed 8 week period for determination of applications due to ongoing negotiations covering a number of important issues.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a Grade II Listed Building currently operating as a doctors surgery although this use is likely to cease in the near future due to relocation of the doctors surgery. Premises are located on the northern side of Melville Street close to junction of Melville Street with Vernon Square. 17 Melville Street is one of a group of Edwardian villas situated on the northern side of Melville Street all of which are Grade II Listed.

Property is three storeys in height with a more modern two storey extension to the rear (north facing). Properties have a stucco rendered finish under a low pitched hipped slated roof. Application site includes a narrow gravel access drive off Bellevue Road further to the north. Application also includes a gravel area immediately abutting the rear of the property which is currently used for parking purposes.

RELEVANT HISTORY

In July 2003 a Listed Building and planning application for similar conversion was refused through the delegated powers process with the reasons for refusal being summarised as follows:

Proposal represented over development and an over intensification of use which together with related works and alterations would have compromised the character and quality of the Listed Building.

The information accompanying the application was inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of accurate floor plans and elevational details.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Both detailed and Listed Building consent is sought for the conversion of the premises from a doctors surgery to a total of seven flats providing 1 three bedroom, 3 two bedroom and 3 one bedroomed flats.

Proposal provides for retention of a number of internal features with particular reference to fireplaces and staircases. In terms of external alterations the proposal provides for minimal alteration restricted to insertion of two windows within the west facing elevation serving a proposed bathroom and staircase landing. In terms of the rear elevation proposal indicates insertion of 2 pairs of timber double doors which replace existing windows. Finally a new window to be inserted in the east facing elevation again serving a staircase landing. In all other respects existing architectural features on the building are to be retained.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

National policies are covered in PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment with relevant issues as follows:

Best way of securing upkeep of historic buildings is to keep them in active use and planning authorities should be more flexible in terms of uses in order to secure the buildings’ survival.

Need to balance economic viability of conversion against ensuring that the level of alteration does not impact on the overall architectural integrity of the buildings.

Appropriate and professional advice should be sought to ensure the conversion has been sensitively dealt with and that existing features have been incorporated within the scheme.

Local Plan Policies – Premises is a Grade II Listed Building being one of a group of seven buildings on the northern side of Melville Street. Premises are also located within the Ryde Conservation Area.

Relevant policies are as follows:

D1 – Standards of Design

B1 – Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings

B2 – Settings of Listed Buildings

B6 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

TR16 – Parking Policies and Guidelines

Reference is also made to Strategic Policy S10.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer’s initial response was critical of the lack of information in respect of parking and junction details where access comes off Bellevue Road. Engineer required details of existing and proposed level of traffic movement with the assumption being made that the existing access and parking are currently used for staff parking and deliveries. He also notes that the residential use may lead to an increase in the use of the access which in any event he considers to be substandard.

These concerns were passed onto the applicant who have submitted revised plans providing appropriate detail which indicate that the parking area will be set aside for 4 spaces with those spaces being set against the western boundary and the manoeuvring space being within the eastern half of the parking area. Highway Engineer has commented as follows:

“I have received revised plans from the agent and I visited the site again this morning. The access to Bellevue Road is inadequate in terms of visibility and width but I do not feel that I could sustain an objection to this development’s use of the access. The doctors surgery utilised this access on a regular basis for 8 or more parking spaces for office based and on call staff. I feel that if I refused the access on the basis of inadequate access an Inspector would not support me due to the lesser traffic generation of only 4 parking spaces.

The lesser parking allowance is acceptable and the site falls within zone 2 (0-50%) of the parking guidelines and has good access to a variety of modes of public transport. “

Following this assessment Highway Engineer recommends conditions should application be approved.

Given the type of application in respect of a Listed Building the comments of the Conservation Area team have been sought. Members are advised that following the issuing of the previous refusal both the Conservation Officer and a Team Leader carefully inspected the building with the applicants’ agent. That inspection revealed that the front original part of the building retained many internal features which are important to the character of the Listed Building. At that time it was noted that the alterations in respect of the original part (three storey element) would adversely affect the number of the historic features of the building with those concerns relating to:

· Retention of stairways

· Proposal to introduce new stairways affecting attractive mouldings

· Subdivisions of first floor rooms would interfere with original proportions of those rooms and result in loss of important fireplaces

· Second floor accommodation would require the insertion of additional roof lights to the front and rear thus affecting the character of the building and noting that the curb feature above the bay window would probably not be able to accept a roof light in any event.

Submitted plans not surprisingly have addressed most of the issues raised although Conservation officer continues to express some concerns regarding the practicality to relocate staircase or construct a matching staircase.

Conservation Officer considers that the information available is sufficient to process this application although suggests that a stringently worded condition should be applied requiring submission of full details of the various internal retained features needing to be agreed prior to work commencing.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has been subject of 5 letters of objection with the owner of one property submitting 2 letters. Points raised are summarised as follows:

· Number of flats proposed (7) represents an overdevelopment adversely affecting the existing environment enjoyed by local residents.

· Most letter writers do not object to the principle of the conversion but consider a maximum number of 4 flats would represent an appropriate level of development.

· Concern that the use of the existing access off Bellevue Road will be subject to increased use as a result of this conversion with particular reference to that use increasing during the evenings and weekends.

· Concern that any additional use of the access may cause dangers to young children and any disabled persons in the area.

· Concern that the general quiet environment to the area would be seriously affected by this excessive number of flats and will seriously alter the general character of the Conservation Area.

· Concern that the proposals do not indicate how additional drainage is to be catered for.

· Concern that increased use of the access will affect the construction quality and cause further damage.

· Objectors note that the flats within the rear area of the building are to be provided with pedestrian access via the access drive off Bellevue Road which presents potential security problems.

· One objector has raised a land ownership issue which essentially is a civil matter.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

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

EVALUATION

Main consideration in respect of this proposal is whether or not it has addressed the concerns identified within the reasons for refusing the previous application.

Whilst the same number of flats are proposed the internal arrangement and alterations have been amended to respect that internal integrity of the buildings architectural features with the result that the level of accommodation within each flat has been reduced. Members will note that the current proposal indicates a mix of accommodation providing 3 two bedroom flats, 3 one bedroom flats and 1 three bedroom flats as opposed to the refused application which indicates 5 two bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom and 1 three bedroom flat. This reduced level of accommodation should enable a more practical conversion to take place.

I therefore consider it would be appropriate to recommend this application for approval although stringent conditions need to be applied to both ensure that detailed features introduced into the building will be architecturally compatible with the style of that building and that any existing features which are to retained remain so and further more no additional partitions are introduced within the main rooms without the appropriate consent. Providing these conditions are applied I consider the conversion proposals to be acceptable.

In terms of the access arrangements Members will note that this has been the subject of detailed discussions with the Highway Engineer and his final comments are self-explanatory. Again there will be a need to apply strict conditions. It is important in this case to ensure that only 4 parking spaces are provided and this I suggest can be dealt with via a condition requiring hard and soft landscaping to be introduced. Providing only 4 vehicles are involved then clearly this would represent a lesser use of the access although the times of use may differ. On this basis I concur with the Highway Engineer’s observation.

While I appreciate the level of concern being expressed by local residents regarding the number of flats being proposed I am of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated that seven flats of the accommodation proposed the application is acceptable conversion and makes the best use of this important Listed Building. Member attention is drawn to the need to encourage conversions to provide residential units with flatted accommodation being identified within the Councils’ Housing Needs Survey for which there is a demand.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration as described in the evaluation section of this report I am satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed the previous reasons for refusal and therefore subject to appropriate conditions both suggested by the Conservation Officer and the Highway Engineer I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - listed building - A11
2	Prior to commencement of works a hard and soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted in respect of the parking area abutting the north facing elevation and any such landscaping scheme shall include for raised planters to enclose the 4 parking spaces indicated on the plan hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in compliance with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
3	Before the development hereby approved in commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing the interior alterations in respect of staircases, doors and door cases, mouldings, skirtings, decorated ceilings, cornices and any other features deemed to be appropriate in the interests of the architectural integrity of the building. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policies B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	Before the development hereby approved is commenced detailed drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 shall be provided and agreed by the Local Planning Authority showing the proposed new external doors and windows and such details shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained thereafter. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	All existing feature fireplaces shall be retained and shall not be removed or altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure a satisfactory and sympathetic form of development in the interests of the character of the Listed Building and to comply with Policy B1 (Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Prior to commencement of work details shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority showing the construction and design of the covered cycle parking provision which shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character of the Listed Building in compliance with Policy B2 (Setting of Listed Buildings) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/14371/J P/02187/03 Parish/Name: Yarmouth Ward: Shalfleet and Yarmouth

Registration Date: 06/11/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Millstream (Yarmouth) Ltd

Outline for residential development; alterations to vehicular/pedestrian access

Yarmouth Garden Machinery / Yarmouth Outboard, Mill Road, Yarmouth, PO410QZ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

High level of objection on top of a previous application that was refused for residential development.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application if determined tonight will have taken 16 weeks, the delay attributable to clarification on the flood risk assessment from the Environment Agency.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site lies on the former Yarmouth Garden Machinery/Yarmouth Outboard Centre on Mill Road just at the junction where the tarmac road meets the unmade road. The site is bounded to the north by residential properties, the east by Yarmouth Garage and residential properties, the south by open space and the road leading to the mill and the west by the Yar Estuary. The site falls from the north to the south. There is no established landscaping on the site and generally the area feels of mixed use although there is a predominance of residential properties.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14371/H - Refused planning permission on 14 April 2003 on grounds of insufficient information/density, scale and mass, flood risk assessment and parking.

History prior to that regards small scale improvements to existing buildings.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

The application seeks to replace the existing development with 5 two storey residential units built in a terrace of 3 and a semi-detached unit. Five associated car parking spaces are provided off road but without turning space. Planters to the front ensures that the car parking is kept to that number and ad hoc parking does not take place.

The units would be raised slightly out of the ground and will be higher than surrounding properties. The design of the buildings are low scale domestic each having two windows at the front and a stable door type on a pitched roof entrance. Buildings appear to be made of stone with brick quoins. These details are picked up on the fenestration surrounds.

The application is for outline planning permission with siting and means of access being agreed at this stage.

There has been a flood risk assessment submitted under the requirements of PPG25 (Flooding).

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

G1 (Development Envelopes), G6 (Areas Liable to Flooding), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of Development within the Site), D3 (Landscaping), D11 (Crime and Design), D12 (Access), D14 (Light Spillage).

H4 (Unallocated Residential Development), H5 (Infill Development), E3 (Change of Use of Employment Land), C1 (Protection of Landscape Character), C2 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), C5 (Coastal Protection Works Development Coastline), TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines).

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Environment Agency comment:

"In this case our judgement is that the development will not place an additional burden on the emergency services to evacuate persons from an area at flood risk and therefore we have no objection to the development. This is based on a range of flood risk information available to the Agency. Flood proofing measures that can be taken to reduce the damage to buildings/property are becoming more common in areas that are subject to flooding. These measures include bringing all electrical services down from ceilings raising slab levels, covers for doors air bricks, solid stone/concrete floor with no voids underneath and no stud work partitions on the ground floors. The applicant should be made aware that the development even if above the flood level is within a flood plain and may have problems with surface water disposal, dampness and means of access during flood events.

For your information the predicted 0.5% probability extreme level in the year 2060 for this area is 3 metres above ordnance datum newlyn. This makes an allowance of 6 mm per year for global warming/land sinking but does not take into consideration wave heights which should be allowed for when setting floor levels."

English Nature comment they do not object.

Highway Officer comments "One car parking space per dwelling is an acceptable level of parking in this location. The car parking area needs some redesigning; if the proposed layout were to be constructed then it is likely that in time the planters would be narrowed or removed and two cars would be squeezed in front of cottages 1, 2 and 3 thus resulting in a grand total of 8 spaces. When an acceptable redesign has been submitted then a modified K04 condition can be applied limiting the maximum of car parking spaces to be limited to one per dwelling."

Environmental Health recommend conditions with regard to possible contamination of land.

AONB comment "In accord with comments raised by my colleague Marijke Ransom regarding TCP/18977/C we do not oppose the principle of residential development on this site. We welcome the decrease in the scale of this proposal and consider this to be more in keeping with the surrounding street scene and the character of the area. As this site is highly visible from considerable distance across the estuary we would have been pleased to see further details on the rear elevation. Should outline planning permission be granted we hope that the final design and landscaping proposal will reflect full consideration of the potential impact from this viewpoint and we would welcome involvement in any discussions regarding this part of the proposal."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Yarmouth Town Council comment "...We are pleased to see a reduction to 5 cottages from 11 flats and more in keeping with the town and also parking. No objections raised."

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There has been 11 letters of comments and objections concerned with:

Density; appropriateness of site to hold for 5 cottages; Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Settlement of wildlife immediately nearby; size doubles existing; making a dangerous corner worse; ruined views for the walkers and cyclists; two storeys are inappropriate; overlooking; loss of privacy; loss of existing use.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

Government places great emphasis on redeveloping brownfield lands especially when they are within the development envelope and when they replace non conforming uses. This ties in with Policy E3 (Resist the development of allocated employment land for other uses) and that the existing redundant use is not appropriate in a residential area. The Government has recently requested that we again visit industrial sites to see if these can be released for housing. Generally within villages and towns the brownfield land is generally former industrial land.

The demand for housing in the right location Policies G1 (Development envelopes) and G4 (General locational requirement) is exhibited through PPG3 and the need to increase densities. This should not be at the expense of the surrounding area which was evident in the previous refusal which sought the replacement of these buildings by 11 units.

The difficulty with this application is that part of the scheme is within the flood plain and accordingly additional information has been sought from Environment Agency and in particular the risk to future occupants. It is right on the edge of the flood plain and accordingly the residents will be at risk but the Environment Agency feel that emergency vehicles etc. will not be held up by the level of water on site. The advice through PPG25 is that a sequential approach should be taken with regard to whether houses on the site should come forward with the ones being closer to the town centre more appropriate than the ones outside and in the countryside within a flooding area. However it is for the Planning Authority to weigh up the need for PPG3 Housing and the requirements of the flood protection through PPG25. Traditionally towns and villages are built at a vantage point close to the coast and/or river crossings and accordingly are prone to flooding. Therefore on balance I feel that it is appropriate that in principle this site can be developed for residential purposes. However accepting this I do not feel that the future occupiers should put any additional burden onto the community regarding sea defence work and accordingly a legal agreement could be sought waving any right to be defended in the future. However looking at the situation this additional burden would be minimal as any sea defence works would protect the whole town and not solely one part of it. Therefore I do not propose seeking a Section 106 Agreement.

The design of the buildings although not part of the outline application appear to be low scale domestic sitting higher than adjoining properties doing this comfortably. The units are still within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty so views into the site from the west remain important. I propose applying a condition on regarding materials and one relating to external lighting of the buildings which should be brought into the planning controls.

To this extent PD rights should be removed reducing the clutter that may be caused from additional extensions, sheds and roof conversions. Policy P14 covers the light spillage and Policy D4 regarding the design.

It is not anticipated that there is contamination on the site but an additional condition is suggested to safeguard any contaminated material on site.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

Two main issues regarding the principle of this development have to be balanced that is the requirement to develop brownfield land through PPG3 and the development of land that is at risk to flooding through PPG25. On balance as this is within development envelope I feel that in principle the development can be supported and the details regarding the design appear appropriate. Car parking is adequate and again can be safeguarded by conditions. Therefore overall the plan is consistent with the Planning Policy Guidance and the policies within the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Details of the planters hereby approved shall be submitted for written approval by this Local Planning Authority before the units are first occupied. Such planters shall remain in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure that the planters are of a satisfactory design and to comply with Policy D4 (Standards of Design) and to ensure that no more than 5 car parking spaces are provided for the whole site and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Submission of samples - S03
6	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01
7	Withdraw PD rights alterat/extens/etc - R02
8	Withdrawn PD right for windows/dormers - R03
9	Withdraw PD rights structures/fences etc - R01
10	Withdraw PD rights for garages - R07
11	Contaminated land - need for scheme - T01
12	No external lighting whatsoever shall be used to the rear and sides of the properties without express written consent from this Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the light spillage onto the nearby estuary is minimised and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

TCPL/14420/U P/02256/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 25/11/2003 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Hotel Direct Limited

Conversion of part of hotel to form 10 flats (revised scheme)

The Teneriffe Hotel, The Strand, Ryde, PO33

See joint report under LBC/14420/V - P/02257/03

Conditions/Reasons:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Submission of samples - S03

LBC/14420/V P/02257/03 Parish/Name: Ryde Ward: Ryde North East

Registration Date: 24/11/2003 - Listed Building Consent

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

Applicant: Hotels Direct Ltd

LBC for alterations in connection with conversion of part of hotel to form 10 flats, (revised scheme)

The Teneriffe Hotel, The Strand, Ryde, PO33

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The recommendation is a departure and contrary to or in conflict with policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application, if determined at 2 March meeting will have taken 13 weeks in which to determine.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

These applications relate to a 3/4 storey Grade II Listed Building which currently operates as a 51 bedroomed hotel complex situated on the southern side of The Strand, between its junctions with Cornwall Street and Simeon Street. The premises have a double road frontage with rear parking area and a garage block fronting Simeon Street. The rear elevation of the premises have some modern additions in red and buff brickwork. The premises sit between other buildings of similar scale, fronting The Strand, situated in the Conservation Area for Ryde.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various consents granted for extensions to the premises as a hotel, most recent of which relate to the single storey extension to provide a private nursery and enclosed access to lower ground floor level approved in June 1993, more recently planning application was refused for the demolition of the garage and single storey rear extension, for the conversion of part of the hotel to form 8 flats. The subsequent appeal was allowed by letter dated 22 May 2003.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

These applications seek planning permission and Listed Building Consent for a similar development to that which was previously refused but allowed on appeal as detailed above.

Previously refused scheme showed a conversion into 8, 3 bedroomed flats over 4 floors and involved limited internal works.

The current scheme seeks to provide 10, 2 bedroomed flats via limited internal alterations, the external alterations only being the removal of the more modern addition at the rear of the hotel, some limited fenestration changes, the addition of balconies in the rear elevation and rendering of the more modern additions to unify the appearance of the structure.

Lower ground floor of the existing building is presently a bar/lounge, a large open area punctuated only by structural columns. Following the removal of the more modern additions, the internal area is broken up by the insertion of 3 internal partition walls resulting in kitchen/dining/lounge areas with a study off to each of 4 units, each with their own internal staircase to upper ground floor where internal partitions would divide the area and produce 2 bedrooms and a bathroom to each of those units.

The original front entrances onto The Strand, reached via a short flight of external steps are retained, an internal entrance lobby provides access to those units on ground and lower ground floor but also to first and second floors which will provide 3 flats for each of first and second floors comprising 2 bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen. Typically the flats have an area of between 60 and 70 m²in floor area.

Outside, the modern lift shaft addition is to be removed as the lower ground floor, flat roofed areas, the double garage fronting Simeon Street and there are also some relatively simple alterations to the roof structure to alleviate headroom restrictions within the second floor level.

The land at the rear, accessed off Simeon Street is shown to be laid out for 10 car parking spaces, one space per unit.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within the designated development envelope for Ryde, within the designated Conservation Area and the existing building is Grade II Listed.

Policy T5 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to hotels outside of the defined hotel areas, resisting the loss of hotel accommodation where it involves the loss of 10 or more letting bedrooms, unless the change is to another form of holiday accommodation or the existing accommodation is upgraded or improved.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer recommends conditions if approved.

Environment Agency raises no objection in principle, acknowledging there will be no increase in sleeping accommodation in the basement. Also point out that there may be a risk of flooding to the property in extreme tidal and fluvial events and with surface water disposal.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection from a local resident objecting to the loss of hotel accommodation over 10 bedrooms, urging refusal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant officer has been given the opportunity to comment but no observations have been received. It is not anticipated that there will be any crime and disorder implications.

EVALUATION

It will be seen from the planning history above that a similar scheme was refused planning permission but was allowed on appeal in May of last year.

Essentially the only difference between the schemes is the fact that there are now 10 2 bedroomed flats proposed as opposed to 8, 3 bedroomed units.

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, adequacy and suitability of accommodation; the physical alterations to the building and resultant effects on the Listed Building and the Conservation Area; effect on adjoining properties and matters relating to access and parking.

The principle of converting part of this hotel into residential use is clearly contrary to the established Policy T5 in the Unitary Development Plan. However, the loss of this holiday accommodation has clearly been examined in the appeal last year when the Inspector resolved that a case had been made to set aside the policy and grant a permission for the change of use. There is, therefore, an extant permission for the conversion of this part of the hotel into residential accommodation. The current scheme revises that conversion to produce an additional 2 units but reduces the overall size of the units to 2 bedroomed flats which will probably be more marketable. Bearing in mind the very recent appeal decision, I do not consider a refusal on principle grounds could be justified.

The way in which the building is subdivided provides a coherent and sensible approach to using the envelope of the building, resulting in all floors being used without prejudice to the safety of prospective occupants from a flooding situation by installing 4 maisonettes on lower ground and upper ground floor with internal staircases serving each. First and second floors would be divided into 3 flats per floor providing adequate sized flats.

External changes to the Listed Building are comparatively limited. The removal of more modern additions, the addition of pitched roofs to the remaining modern additions and the substitution of appropriate fenestration will result in an enhancement of the building and of the Conservation Area rather than a detraction from its character. The inclusion of balconies on the rear elevation are unlikely, in the main, to affect either the appearance of the building or the amenities of adjoining properties but in order to ensure privacy to the adjoining property to the east, 1.8. metre high screens have been included in the scheme to retain adequate levels of privacy.

With the removal of the double garage at the rear, the remaining area, with access off Simeon Street can be laid out to produce sufficient parking for one vehicle space per flat with a practical means of turning on site. Most of the parking area is situated behind a 1.5 metre high brick wall which is already in existence fronting Simeon Street.

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 applicants 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 applicants. 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 the material considerations as detailed in the evaluation section above, the conversion of this part of the hotel, being a Listed Building, into 10 units of accommodation will result in an acceptable change of use which has already been authorized at appeal and provision of residential units of a size which will meet the requirements of the housing market more closely. The design and proposed finishes will be sympathetic to the Listed Building and the Conservation Area and therefore it is concluded that the development will be consistent with Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, D2, H5, TR7, B1, B2, B3 and B6 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL (BOTH APPLICATIONS)

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a maximum of 10 car parking spaces has been laid out within the site in accordance with details that have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	A boundary wall shall be erected across the existing vehicular access onto The Strand to a height and of materials in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with Policy TR7 and in the interests of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy B2 of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	Obscure glazed screening to a height of 1.8 metres shall be erected and maintained along the full depth of the east side of the balconies on first and second floors at the eastern end of the building, in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented before those flats are first occupied. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and in accordance with Policy D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
6	The car parking area shall be surfaced in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the car park area shall be surfaced and the car parking spaces marked out prior to the occupation of the flats hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to ensure adequate parking provision is retained in accordance with Policies B2 and TR7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
7	Balustrading to the balconies and the private gardens to the lower flats shall be painted and maintained in a dark grey or black in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the flats hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and of the Listed Building in particular.

TCP/18086/B P/01431/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 23/09/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Godshill Park Developments

Hotel & conference room with link to existing restaurant (Environmental Statement submitted) (readvertised application)

Lakeside, High Street, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, PO334LJ

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of the Local Member who felt that as he lives opposite the site that a more open and transparent decision would be evident if the matter went to Committee.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

The application was registered on 17 July 2003 and has taken approximately 7 months to deal with. The development required an Environmental Statement that was not submitted with the application, and accordingly the application was held in abeyance. A better solution has tried to be negotiated.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The site of the proposed development lies to the south of Wootton close to Kite Hill and opposite The Sloop Public House. It is located on the south side of the A3054 at Wootton Bridge on the western bank of a large body of brackish water known as the Old Mill Pond.

The site has been previously developed with an existing building (restaurant) overlooking the Mill Pond and an area dug out that was formerly a swimming pool. The site is crossed by paths created through informal use.

The site is cordoned by trees, including Hurst Copse Ancient Oak Woodland to the south and enjoys a number of trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

RELEVANT HISTORY

The existing Lakeside Restaurant is now unused, but was once part of a larger tourist related use which consisted of a country club building with 24 chalets and a swimming pool. An associated camping site was located immediately to the south of the application site.

In 1990 outline planning permission was granted for 60 holiday lodges and a leisure club on the development site. The application was accompanied by an agreement under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which prevented the use of any of the lodges as a permanent residence by any one person for more than three months in a calendar year, or for purposes other than holiday accommodation.

A further outline planning permission was granted in 1993 for 60 holiday lodges and a leisure club and permission was granted in 1996 on a reserved matters application.

An outline planning application for residential development of 40 dwellings was submitted to the Isle of Wight Council in October 1996. Following a non-determination, an appeal to the Secretary of State was made. A local Inquiry into the appeal was held on 30 and 31 July 1997 and the appeal dismissed. Following a High Court ruling, the previous application was not implemented.

TCP/18086/A – P/1380/00 – Planning permission granted for a hotel and conference centre subject to conditions on 20/08/2001.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement which is centred around issues of ecology and landscape as the main environmental aspects of the development proposals. Traffic generation, water level management and visitor pressure are also considered.

The applicant describes the development as follows:

“The proposed redevelopment of the Lakeside site, to include a new hotel, with conference facility, was given formal planning approval in 2001, under TCP/18086/A – P/1380/00.

This consent was for a substantial hotel and conference facility, the application included a full Environmental Impact Statement, and Landscaping Scheme, together with associated agreement in relation to drainage, etc.

For a number of reasons, it has proved difficult to get the approved scheme off the ground, and in this respect it is proposed to revise the project, to reduce the scale and complexity at this time, to allow it to move forward.

In every respect the proposal is as the approved scheme, but the hotel is smaller. Within the in-house facilities, the new scheme will link the new hotel with the existing Lakeside Restaurant, and incorporate a smaller conference unit.

The linking of the existing Lakeside Restaurant and the new hotel, is accommodated via the existing flat roof additions, with the new conference unit constructed in the same vein, giving a common link, whilst maintaining a separation between the existing and the new.

There will be no change to the requirements for drainage as already approved, as the new scheme is smaller than the consent already in place.

The landscaping and the new access bridge, will also be as the consent already in place.”

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The following Unitary Development Plans are relevant:

D1 Standards of Design:

"Development will be permitted only where it maintains, or wherever possible enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to show a good quality of design and should conform with the following criteria:

(a) respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area;

(b) sympathetic in scale, materials, form, siting, layout and detailing;

(d) provide for safe, convenient access and circulation for the public, including the disabled;

(e) provide adequate daylight, sunlight and circulation for the public, including the disabled;

(f) respect historic street and footpath patterns;

(g) do not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped appearance and obtrusiveness but include appropriate spacing between properties;

(h) do not detract from the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjoining buildings;

(i) do not adversely affect the visual amenity of occupiers of the same building or site;

(j) retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area."

D2 - Standards for Development Within the Site:

"Development approved by the Council will be required to create an interesting and attractive environment within the site by:

(a) achieving a high standard of design and relating well to adjacent buildings;

(b) taking account of views into and out of the site;

(c) where possible, incorporating existing landscape features and retaining existing trees, woodland, hedgerows, ponds, streams and water features;

(d) taking account of changes in levels or slopes;

(e) incorporating adequate landscaping proposals."

D3 - Landscaping:

"In appropriate cases, planning applications will be expected to be accompanied by appropriate landscaping as an integral part of the scheme and will be approved provided the following criteria are met:

(a) the scheme reflects the existing features, character and locality;

(b) space has been allowed for a suitable landscape scheme to be implemented. The scheme should include details of hard and soft landscaping, natural features, the retention and management of trees, proposed changes to land drainage and levels as well as boundaries and parking areas;

TR4 - Transport Statement Requirements for Major Development:

"Planning applications for developments which, by their nature, attract a significant number of persons, such as large retail uses, tourist attractions, residential developments or places or employment, must include a supporting statement which shows how the proposal has addressed the need to travel to and from the development by car. The Council will require to be satisfied that adequate measures have been taken to provide for public transport, bicycle and foot travel before approving any application."

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Development:

"Planning applications for new development will be approved where they take account of the following matters, for highway safety:

(a) that the proper provision of facilities within the development has been made so as to ensure the safe movement and separation of vehicular traffic, buses, bicycles and pedestrians;

(b) that any new road layout, including vehicular access, road junctions and crossing points are constructed to provide safe conditions for all road users, particularly the needs of the more vulnerable, such as cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled."

T2 - Sites Suitable for Tourism Related Development:

"Planning proposals for tourism uses in the areas specified below and defined on the proposals map will be acceptable in principle.”

T6 - Permanent Accommodation Sites (other than hotels):

Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

(a) they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

(b) they do not detract from their surroundings;

(d) new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."

C1 - Protection of Landscape Character:

"Planning applications for appropriate development in the countryside must maintain and protect the landscape whether viewed from the land or sea, and should be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there. Development which may be acceptable in the countryside must take account of the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the area."

C2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

"Within the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) planning applications will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and:

(d) reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development."

C7 - River Corridors and Estuaries.

C8 - Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration.

C9 - Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation.

C10 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

C11 - Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

C12 - Development Affecting Trees and Woodland:

"Development which would result in loss or damage to trees, forests or woodland of individual importance or which contribute to the character or amenity of the area will not be approved, unless the Council is satisfied that there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replacement planting is undertaken on the site. Where this is the case, a condition of approval is that the applicant must show a strategy for after-care and maintenance that the Council feel is both satisfactory and enforceable."

B9 - Protection of Archaeological Heritage:

“Development proposals which are likely to adversely affect the archaeological heritage and features of the Island, directly or indirectly, will not be permitted. Planning applications will be approved provided that:

(c) where development is proposed at a location which is likely to affect an archaeological site or its setting, permission may exceptionally be granted if preservation of archaeological remains in situ can be achieved by the careful use of appropriate layout, foundations and design.”

B10 - Parks and Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest:

“Development proposals which are likely to adversely affect an Historic Park or Garden or Historic Landscape of national or local importance, or its setting, directly or indirectly, will not be permitted.”

U11 - Infrastructure and Services Provision:

“Before granting planning permission for development, the Council shall be satisfied that adequate infrastructure, services and supplies infrastructure or drainage will be available to serve a site and its future users in terms of access, water supply, electricity and other power supplies, drainage and car parking and that these can be provided in an environmentally acceptable way. In addition there should be no adverse effect upon supplies, infrastructure or drainage for existing or other approved development.”

In addition, the following guidelines have been followed:

PPG9 - Nature Conservation.

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

Wootton Village Design Statement.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

The Isle of Wight Landscape, Countryside Commission 1994.

The Isle of Wight AONB Management Plan. Isle of Wight AONB Joint Advisory Committee 1994.

Isle of Wight Countryside Design Summary.

Countryside Character Volume 7 - South East and London, Countryside Agency 1999.

Historic Parks and Gardens of the Isle of Wight, H V Basford 1989.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

The Council’s Ecology Officer states “I have no comments to make upon this application provided that all the conditions relating to the use, landscaping and management of the grounds are carried forward from the previous approval.” He further adds “I concur with the comments made by EPR Consultants (submitted as part of the Environmental Statement) in connection with the environmental implications of the revised design. These relate to protected species which may be using the parts of the site which will be directly affected by the development.

1. Badgers. Badgers were excluded from the old swimming pool prior to the submission of the original planning application in 2001. Since that time, the site has lain fallow and badgers may have recolonised. Any works carried out within 30 metres of an active badger sett would be in contravention of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

2. Bats. A bat survey was not carried out at the time of the original planning application. However, since that time, additional European legislation in relation to the protection of bats and their roosts requires that any buildings and trees affected by development should be checked for bat roosts and, if bats are affected by development then a licence form DEFRA is required and appropriate mitigation should be put in place.

I would suggest that the applicant should be advised of these matters by letter.”

Environmental Health advise that the application has not submitted sufficient evidence regarding, type of food, ventilation system, hours of operation including business hours of the premises, and noise levels.

AONB comment;

“The site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Bearing in mind the existing permission on the site, we are keen to ensure that all development within the AONB, meets the purpose of the designation, is in accordance with relevant planning policy and guidance, benefits the local rural economy/community and meets high standards of design. In this instance we believe there are opportunities for promoting and achieving an example of ‘Best Practice’ on this site with regards to development within an AONB.

With regards to the submitted application, we do have concerns about the design, in particular we feel that the proposed addition makes poor relationship in terms of scale, design and materials to the existing and also in terms of the landscape features of the site.

Whilst only a suggestion, we feel that there is potential for this site/proposal to meet the objectives of a proposal for a ‘Sustainability Centre for the Island’ which was discussed at a workshop (31 July 2003) run by the IW Economic Partnership (Liz Wood and Roger Craven) as a possible project bid through the Area Investment Framework (AIF). This of course would also have some benefits to the applicant. Objectives for the project include demonstrating:

· Sustainable build

· Use of the Island’s renewable energy resources

· Sensitive regard for landscape and the environment

· Incorporation of sustainable transport initiatives into new development

And providing:

· A tourism/education facility to benefit the Island economy and community

· A centre of excellence to promote development and awareness of sustainable initiatives around the Island.

I would welcome your thoughts whether you believe it would be worthwhile for the applicant to explore this possibility with the IW Economic Partnership.”

English Nature comments:

“I can confirm that the above application will not have a significant effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar and will not require an appropriate assessment. English Nature does not wish to object to the application under the wider biodiversity interests of the Ryde Sands to Wootton Creek SSSI.

However, I would like to question the effect of the application on the nearby bat populations of Briddlesford Copse. At this stage we do not wish to object, but would like to know whether a bat survey of the existing buildings and trees has been carried out as part of the original Environmental Impact Statement. If this is not the case you will need to contact English Nature’s Species Officer Andrew Whitehouse to determine what needs to be done.”

The Highway Engineer recommends refusal on grounds of inadequate access and insufficient information.

Environment Agency give general planning advice regarding any works to a culvert and ownership requirements regard to any watercourse.

Fire and Rescue Service consider that the proposals are considered satisfactory.

The Conservation and Design Officer comments;

“I have considered the submitted plans and am concerned that the proposed hotel would be a large building which would be monolithic in appearance of three storeys in height under a substantial hipped roof with little variety in the roofline or elevational treatment.

No attempt has been made to break up the mass of the building or to provide different visual elements.

The roof pitch and shape makes no reference to the distinctive and prominent roof design of the adjacent building (Lakeside Restaurant) and the design is considered pedestrian in character with a series of square proportioned domestic scaled windows evenly spaces throughout the elevation. The elevations lack any rhythm and there is no evidence of any architectural detail or design quality.

The site is prominently located and the adjacent restaurant is of distinctive design. Whilst I would not advocate copying the details of an existing building, I do consider that the new development should acknowledge the character of the existing building and the location as a whole. The buildings will be seen in context with each other, particularly when viewed across the millpond.

The present design seems to be a lost opportunity and this site requires a development of distinction and quality in this important location.

I note that a previous scheme was larger in footprint although lower in profile and also provided a building of more distinctive appearance. I consider this a more appropriate design approach for this location.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Wootton Bridge Parish Council comments:

“The Parish Council supports this application in principle. However there are concerns over the design of the building which Members feel could be more in keeping with the surrounding. Furthermore Members would strongly recommend an adequate traffic management arrangement at the access onto the High Street. There are many traffic issues in Wootton High Street and in particular the lower High Street area including the effects of: -

· The proposed Woodside Bay development at the New Road/High Street junction.

· The Woodland Cemetery, at Lakeside.

· The possible development of the High Street Methodist Church as a community facility.

· The traffic from the new larger ferries.

Accordingly the Parish Council repeats its suggestion already put to Highways that consideration be given to providing a roundabout at the Lakeside junction. Members are aware of the costs involved but feel that it merits consideration, bearing in mind the number of vehicles using this stretch of highway, the road safety issues, and the issues in the lower High Street.

They go on to further comment when the application was readvertised.

“The Parish Council supports this application in principle.

However Members are concerned over the access onto the High Street.

As mentioned in the Parish Council’s previous comments, (see my letter dated 15 August 2003), there are various traffic issues in the lower High Street including the proposed redevelopment of the former Warner’s site at Woodside and its effects on the New Road/High Street junction, the Woodland Cemetery at Lakeside, the possible redevelopment of the High Street Methodist Church as a community facility and the traffic associated with the new larger ferries. In addition there is now the new Tesco store opposite Brannon Way, which is generating a considerable amount of traffic movement.

Furthermore the relocation of the Post Office from the village centre to the SPAR shop at the top end of the High Street brings with it highways issues. These issues include highway safety matters resulting from increased traffic movements to and from the SPAR shop immediately onto the traffic lights at this four way junction, and whether the light controlled pedestrian crossing near the now empty Post Office needs to be relocated.

Although these traffic issues are not directly connected with this application, Members feel very strongly that the High Street traffic situation, including the Lakeside junction, needs to be considered as a whole to ensure that a comprehensive and successful traffic management system is designed to take into account these problems.

The need to keep traffic flowing through the village is an absolute priority and this is why Members suggested a roundabout at the Lakeside/High Street junction as part of their comments submitted in respect of the previous application back in August. This view still holds. Also, a proper entrance is required, particularly if coaches are to be using the site.

Members are therefore of the strong view that a traffic management system is needed at the Lakeside/High Street junction but that this needs to be considered as part of a wider traffic plan for the entire High Street, of which Members would welcome involvement.

Finally, some concerns have been voiced over the impact of the associated traffic on the unmade road within the site, for example: -

1. The effect on residents who use this road to gain access to their properties.

2. The effect of the additional traffic, particularly coaches, on any underground utility services.

It is requested that any issues in this respect should be investigated and addressed.“

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter supporting proposal in principle if development is of good quality. Need to be assured that peaceful environment would not be disturbed.

Two letters from Campaign to Protect Rural England. Comments on previous approval but is concerned with the design of this development. It should be sensitive to its environment. Concern regarding process.

Islandwatch object to the unnecessarily large and intrusive hotel building.

Two letters questioning need and objecting to proposal.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The Crime Prevention Officer comments;

“This proposed development would be very much welcomed to change an area that looks deserted and beginning to look rundown which in its current state is certain to attract crime and disorder problems.

The majority of crime prevention measures for hotels is security of the buildings and management issues.

As regards this application it is the parking area for cars and coaches that needs looking at. A public footpath runs close to the hotel property, which makes identifying prospective intruders very difficult. The landscaping of the hotel property is very important to ensure good surveillance and unless there is outdoor security staff, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system would be advisable to allow staff in the building to keep an eye on guests’ cars and coaches. To ensure the CCTV works to its optimum a good lighting package is required. As the amount of residential property in the area is low, good lighting is essential, especially to counter the ‘Fear of Crime’ issue during the short daylight hours in the winter. Due to the location amongst trees and relatively isolated position lighting is so important with a restaurant open to the general public all year round. There is nation good practice about down lighting giving very little light pollution to refer to.

All ground floor windows in the hotel should have window-opening restrictors to stop unwanted entry especially during periods of hot weather.

We have no objections in principle to the application but would like to ensure that the approach to, and the car parking area is properly lit with good surveillance.”

EVALUATION

This application seeks to develop an area of land which has had a former tourist use and is allocated within the Unitary Development Plan for tourist development. It also falls within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to sensitive Nature Conservation Areas. There is no principle objection to this land use, although as often is the case, ‘the devil is in the detail’ regarding the specific impacts on the areas of acknowledged importance.

We now find ourselves in the position of previously approving a larger scheme (in footprint) and accordingly to some extent all the issues have been previously explored and can be resolved by condition. However there is one fundamental issue that has changed, in my opinion for the worse – that of the design and scale of the building.

It is essential that if the existing penetration with the countryside of buildings is to be supported by an additional building then that building should not steal anything from the environment but add something to it. The proposal pays little respect to this and sits uncomfortably within its setting. This proposal could be in any town location. Its design does not meet the standard for allowing development and is a large step backwards on the previous approval.

Quite clearly, the proposal will generate activity which will be controlled within the complex with car parking being cordoned by the development.

Of primary concern is the use of the mill pond for recreational purposes and possible noise and light pollution. The latter can be controlled somewhat by conditions restricting freestanding lights and directing the activity away from the noise sensitive areas by way of condition. The restaurant and conference facility lights can again (by condition) be turned off when not in use. Therefore, minimising any impact.

With the application positive commitments are being made to manage semi-improved grassland to the south of the site and make this available for users of the site. Blackbridge Brook passes through the wetlands to the mill pond and eventually out to sea and is surrounded by Firestone Copse, Six Acres Copse, Swan Copse and Hurst Copse beyond, which are SSSIs and the mill pond itself is a SINC.

The pontoons in themselves as proposed are unlikely to have a significant effect, but they do encourage a use that may.

The traffic has been assessed as part of the Environmental Statement taking into consideration previous planning approvals for sixty holiday lodges and leisure club. Figures provided show that the development would not generate any additional traffic to the leisure club. The development is pitched at 75 per cent occupancy rate with many visitors arriving by coach or taxi due to the location close to the ports. There has been 113 car parking spaces provided. Highways are not satisfied that the access is acceptable but this has to be taken in the light that a larger traffic generation has been approved on this land with the support of Highways.

It is not envisaged that the traffic generation will be any more than the previous use and accordingly there is no requirement to improve the access onto Wootton High Street. Members will be aware that there is a large protected tree at the access which makes the visibility splays less than perfect, but some improvement can be made by removing scrub from the visibility splay on the east of the site.

There is an access road proposed to the development which follows the line of the existing bridle way. It is proposed to be re-tarmacked, but this is a bridle way and future maintenance of this road will need to be resolved as an issue with the Council. Appropriate road markings for shared use should be made.

Within this roadway there is a small bridge made of dressed stone which has substantial merit, although it has started to fall into a state of disrepair. The proposals would have to strengthen over this bridge to accommodate the larger vehicles such as coaches and any integrity of this bridge would be lost. The bridge was built between 1790 and 1793 and the County Archaeologist states in her representations on the previous permission that it is an attractive feature for the former landscape park and is worthy of protection and preservation and is also recorded on the County Sites and Monuments Records. By effectively moving the roadway eastwards and taking into consideration that some trees which are protected may be lost, a solution can be achieved. It would clearly show the bridle way goes off in one direction over the bridge and the transport goes on the other side.

The car park will provide 113 car parking spaces, but there is a need to reduce travel by car to and from the site and this should be encouraged by designated cycle hoops as not to deter any would-be users. This could be covered by condition.

It is important to preserve the local landscape character when considering this development and the design of the development has been touched on earlier. There is no proposed significant removal of landscaping and appropriate species of trees will be provided to enhance the development and add to the existing landscape quality. The landscape issues have been assessed by the AONB Officer. Concern has been raised by the design.

Confirmation has been sought from Southern Water and previously received verbally that the High Street has capacity to accommodate the development, although it is stated that it can within the Environmental Statement. Surface water from the buildings is proposed to be discharged to the millpond and appropriate attenuation and interceptors will be provided. A condition can cover these.

With the previous application Members attached considerable significant to the requirements of Policy U11 of the Unitary Development Plan which states:

“Before granting planning permission for development, the Council should be satisfied that adequate infrastructure, services and supplies infrastructure or drainage will be available to serve a site and its future users in terms of access, water supply, electricity and other power supplies, drainage and car parking and that these can be provided in an environmentally acceptable way. In addition, there should be no adverse effect upon supplies, infrastructure or drainage for existing or other approved development.”

It is essential to provide adequate services and infrastructure to serve developments and those who will live and work there. Infrastructure and services include the provision of adequate supplies of water and power and, importantly, facilities for the disposal of waste and storm water.

The written representations from the applicant’s agent are repeated below. He raises a number of points of information and clarification:

·Southern Water Services have confirmed that the existing system is capable of dealing with foul sewage at a rate of up to 1.5 litres/second. The agent has produced written evidence to this effect.

·The agent has also provided detailed calculations prepared by the applicant’s consultant engineer which indicate that the foul sewage generated by the proposed development will fall within the guidelines set out by Southern Water Services.

·Draws attention to a letter from Southern Water Services to the Case Officer confirming that the existing sewers are capable of accepting the rate of discharge.

·Agent has provided comparison statistics to indicate that the likely measured flow will be less than half of the 1.5 litres/second referred to by Southern Water Services.

·He confirms that surface water drainage will not be discharged to the local sewerage system in Wootton High Street, but instead will run to the existing millpond via suitable interceptors.

The agent comes to the following conclusion:

“... that the calculated projected flow rate of 1.5 litres/second are more realistic, and in practice will be much less, the sewers are capable of accepting up to 1.5 litres/second as is the pumping station, the drainage as proposed is therefore acceptable.”

“... in the interests of pushing the Lakeside project forward and to mitigate any potential worries, our clients can offer to incorporate a flow balancing system to the Lakeside foul drainage, which will offer the benefit of controlling discharge of the sewage from the site, so that it is prevented from entering the sewerage system, at times of heavy rain...”

For avoidance of doubt, the agent previously provided a copy of a letter from the Planning Engineer for Southern Water Services to confirm that the information contained in the letter to this Authority on 21 June 2001 is still relevant, remains correct and there had been no change in circumstances.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material consideration referred to in this report there are clearly a number of design issues on which this proposal fails to comply with relevant national and local policies. I remain concerned with the scale, mass, height and details of design of this building.

RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The proposal by reason of its position, size, design and external appearance, would be an intrusive development, out of scale and character with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality as well as having a serious and adverse effect on the visual amenities enjoyed by the users of his surrounding land uses and would be contrary to Policy S6 (To be of High Standard of Design) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

The information accompanying this application is inadequate and deficient in detail in respect of the proposed access onto the highway. The Local Planning Authority is unable to consider fully the effects of the proposal on the existing highway and in the absence of further details it is considered the proposal is not suitable for approval.

TCP/24782/B P/02464/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Osborne

Registration Date: 11/12/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Red Funnel/Vectis Transport

Renewal: Use of land as commercial vehicle trailer park; use of land for emergency marshalling of cars

land south east of Osborne Works, Whippingham Road, East Cowes, PO32

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The application was particularly contentious in the past and has attracted a significant number of representations.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

Application has taken seven weeks to process.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to unused area of rectangular land which adjoins GKN Osborne Works and which fronts Whippingham Road.

The application site totals some 0.35 hectares and is accessed via an existing layby and gated entrance point. Site is screened to some extent by row of Leylandii which fronts Whippingham Road. Council's Tree and Landscape Officer has surveyed site and TPO made in respect of those trees fronting Osborne Works road frontage and northern boundary of application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Application has been submitted to Council seeking to register site as a village green, however, Members should appreciate that such a matter is not relevant to the determination of this planning application. The Inspectors decision is awaited.

Temporary permission for one year expiring 31/12/03 for use of land for commercial vehicle trailer park.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks to renew temporary consent to use area of land as commercial vehicle trailer park with submitted plans indicating parking for some sixteen units.

Proposal seeks to retain existing screen of Leylandii trees together with formation of new two metre high earth bank along south eastern boundary of proposed trailer park.

Access to site will be gained from existing layby and gated entrance with existing gates being moved back some six metres further into site to allow access berth. Trailer park itself will have maximum dimensions of some 72 metres x 40 metres and be covered in Consolidated Type 1 Aggregate with new tarmacadam entrance aprons. Formation of entrance will itself require removal of several trees. Agent has submitted supporting letter with application which advises application seeks to ease congestion problems at the company's main depot at Riverway as well as improving freight movement operational procedures of Vectis Transport/Red Funnel distribution at East Cowes ferry terminal.

Application seeks approval for trailer park on temporary 12 month basis, if approved the intention would be to submit a further application towards the end of 12 month period for continued use on a more permanent basis.

In support of application agent has submitted statement, advising that need for additional trailer parking is due to increasing under capacity at company's main vehicle depot on Riverway. Available area for vehicle/trailer parking at Riverway was extended some 18 months ago but due to increased business more capacity is needed and there is no further scope for extending parking area at that site. As a result of this situation more trailer parking and commercial vehicle operations has been occurring at East Cowes ferry terminal where Vectis Transport undertake major elements of overall operations.

Agent goes on to state that Vectis Transport are seeking to improve operational procedures at East Cowes ferry terminal especially with regard to evening/nighttime use of Phoenix Yard by relocating trailer park. At present empty trailers are parked at ferry terminal and are shuttled onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Proposal would enable coupling/uncoupling of tractor cabs to/from trailers and associated maneuvering to be done on site remote from terminal. Tractor cabs at East Cowes site also pick up fully laden trailers off ferries to distribute directly to Island businesses - this part of operation will be unaffected.

With regard to Highways issue site is served by existing crossover/vehicle access which was originally constructed to provide alternative access to GKN's Osborne works site but which has never been brought into use. Existing access has layby approach from south east a generous ten metre radius kerb and a six metre wide roadway. Visibility from junction to south east (approaching near side traffic) is in excess of 200 metres. This is considered by agent to be most important visibility direction since coupled tractor/trailer will almost exclusively be leaving site in north westerly direction to travel to East Cowes terminal. The only time vehicles will leave site in south easterly direction towards Newport is when unladen tractors will occasionally leave site to return to Vectis Transports Newport depot. Visibility from junction to north west is not as good as to south east but is still well in excess of 100 metres. Whilst visibility displays are normally taken at a point at a junction 2 metres or 2.4 metres back from road edge with regard to particular proposal it is argued that these dimensions are not relevant. This application seeks use of site for articulated trailer parking only and tractor cabs which pull trailers and have no bonnet projections beyond windscreen. From photographs submitted it is suggested that only one metre set back is required which allows visibility of 140 metres to be achieved. Agent concludes that whichever visibility display set back is required adequate visibility is achievable.

With regards to visual impact trailers being parked along side roadside boundary agent opines that site will be well screened and securely fenced with chain link fencing. Most of site will have porous surface i.e. crushed limestone scalpings with tarmacadam apron. Existing topsoil which will be scraped from site will be banked to form bund alongside south east boundary of application site. Some form of low level artificial lighting will be required with specification and siting of lighting to be agreed at a later stage.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Application site forms part of larger area of land allocated for employment use with Unitary Development Plan.

Text to document advises that employment site in total covers some 3.2 hectares and is allocated for high quality business B1, general industry B2 and storage and distribution services B8 development. Made up of land previously used as private allotment gardens this site which is owned by Westland Aerospace has been identified by them for development as part of redevelopment of adjoining Osborne Works to north west.

Site lies outside development envelope as shown on UDP.

Policy T3 of UDP seeks to resist development of allocated employment land for other uses.

Policy G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm setting of settlement or village or part of that setting.

Policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes will help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with cross-Solent ferry terminals.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

On the previous application Environmental Health commented that following submission of Noise Consultants Report and further negotiation Environmental Health Officer advises that permitted noise levels would not be exceeded by site operations up to the hour of 23:00. Therefore, in order to safeguard occupants of residential properties from disturbance it is suggested that a time restriction is placed on use of trailer park to allow operations only between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours unless a scheme for the attenuation of noise to prevent emissions from trailer park affecting residential properties in the vicinity is submitted to and subsequently approved by the Local Planning Authority. The provisions of this scheme shall include physical controls, operational restrictions and administrative controls where appropriate. Other condition suggested restrict number of movements per hour and prohibits operational refrigerated trailers being parked on site.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

80 (eighty) individual letters of objection have been received and objections can be summarised as follows:

- Relationship with other development in the area.

- Increase in hazard to highway uses both car born and pedestrian.

- Proposal will compromise road safety.

- Adverse environmental impact to proposed development.

- Proposed site too near to existing housing which will be adversely affected.

- Residential occupiers adversely affected by increased noise from traffic movement and potential hours of operation.

- Increased disturbance from associated traffic movement.

- Reference being made to further expansion and questioning temporary nature of current application.

- Inappropriate visual intrusion in open area.

- Proposal will conflict with operation of nearby primary school and compromise safety of parents and children walking to and from site.

- Potential nuisance from light pollution.

- Development contrary to transport policy of Council.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

Relevant Officer given opportunity to comment but no observations received.

EVALUATION

Main planning considerations relate to appropriateness of site in land use terms and UDP policy planning benefits of relocated trailer park and potential impacts on surrounding residential occupiers together with highway considerations.

In terms of policy, G5 does allow for specific development outside defined settlements including small scale development ancillary to industrial/commercial development providing such development does not reduce quality of environment and landscape or harm settlement or village. Furthermore the site is allocated for employment use within the UDP and whilst policy T3 seeks to resist development of such allocated employment land for other uses it is important to note that application seek temporary consent and any such approval on this basis would not prejudice future employment use of this site.

Notwithstanding policy situation, use of site would allow more efficient use of applicants Riverway premises whilst relieving pressure on Phoenix Yard parking area in East Cowes itself which as explained by agent involves parking of trailers and shuttling onto ferries using detachable tractor cabs mainly during nighttime operations. Members will note that policy TR11 supports appropriate land use proposals or traffic management schemes which would help address traffic and marshalling problems associated with Islands cross Solent ferry terminals provided any such scheme is in keeping with its surroundings, is appropriate in scale and operation for location proposed and would not have unacceptable detrimental or adverse environmental impact on wider area in general.

Members will appreciate that important consideration in respect of this application is planning gain offered in respect of effect on operation of existing depot sites.

Turning to more detailed matters given sites employment use allocation in UDP and existing tree screen, together with applicant's intention to construct bund I do not consider any reasonable objection can be raised in respect of visual intrusion adjacent existing industrial premises.

It is important to note that existing access whilst granted consent several years ago does not meet visibility splays imposed at time of consent. Furthermore Highway Engineer notes traffic flows have increased since that time and proposal of this nature would normally now expect road widening and other highway improvements incorporating right turn lane. Revised proposal incorporates required visibility splay by relocation of boundary fence.

Bringing forward the Environment Health Officer's concerns over potential disamenity that could be caused to neighbouring land uses, specifically residential properties in the vicinity, he assessed the application on basis of submission of comprehensive noise assessment survey including an assessment of existing background noise levels in the locality. Issue of potential impact on residential amenities was considered sufficiently important to warrant such survey information and report has been commissioned and considered by Environmental Health Officer.

Provided appropriate safeguarding conditions are attached to any consent I consider proposal is acceptable and will allow facility to be relocated in a location that will not unduly impact on locality or surrounding residential occupiers whilst satisfying requirements of Highway Engineer.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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 proposal offers planning gain in respect of operation of other sites and although there will be some local impact the development will benefit the community as a whole. The application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 1 April 2005 unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained in writing for a further period in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use.
2	Prior to the trailer park being brought into use the boundary fencing fronting Whippingham Road shall be relocated and visibility splays of x = 2.4 and y = 120 metres dimension shall be constructed in a north westerly direction in accordance with the approved drawing no. 202-08/01A and maintained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	Prior to the trailer park being brought into use a two metre high earth bund shall be constructed along the south eastern boundary of the site as shown on drawing no. 202-08/01A and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site and to protect the appearance and character of the area and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Boundary details - M33
5	No deliveries, collections or vehicle movements from the site shall take place between the hours of 23:00 to 07:00 hours Mondays to Saturdays and at no times on any Sundays or public Bank Holidays. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, from noise emissions from the site and to comply with Policy P5 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No operation of refrigerated trailer units shall be permitted on the site at any time. Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, from noise emissions from the site and to comply with Policy P5 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Details of any lighting/floodlighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use hereby permitted commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	Details of the construction of proposed access and parking area together with the details of the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to, approved by and thereafter constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed development site.
9	No structure or erection or natural growth, plants, shrubs etc exceeding 0.6 metres in height above existing road level shall be placed or permitted within the area of land as shown yellow on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

TCP/25521 P/00644/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Osborne

Registration Date: 09/04/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: Island Harbour Limited

Terrace of 7 houses to be used for holiday purposes and seeking amendment to TCP/14525/S (additional information relating to mooring allocation proposed & within existing marina)(readvertised application)

land north of, Redshank Way, Newport, PO30

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A relatively straightforward application that has attracted a large amount of objection and went to the 14 October 2003 Development Control Committee. The application was deferred to seek more information regarding the pontoons. This additional information was advertised on the 16 January 2003.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This application has taken 11 months to process due to the clarification sought from statutory consultees, level of casework of the Officer and the restructuring of the Development Control Section as well as requesting information form the applicant and readvertising the application.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Site is currently being developed with drains etc. being laid. Site appears to be spoil from adjoining development to the south which has been built out (41 units of 96). To the west is the attractive waterscape of the marina which becomes informal in its setting as the views move further northwards. To the east is open farmland that slopes up from the site. The site is linked to the existing development to the south by private roadways and paths. Overall the area has a pleasant feel and a clear association with the water.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/14525S - 96 yachtsmen holiday cottages and flats, 96 marina berths and 128 parking spaces - approved 18 November 1988. Section 52 Agreement (31 October 1988) restricting amongst others the use to forty two weeks per year and a requirement to keep a boat.

Since that date applications have been made to vary the restrictions but they have been unsuccessful with Members reaffirming their position in January 2001.

An amendment to the above scheme was agreed on 30 January 2001 which changed elevational details and slight revised siting on plots 37 to 43 and 29 to 36 and the rearrangement of a pontoon.

A further amendment to the original scheme was rejected as an amendment as it required a planning application. This proposal is the subject of this report which has now been submitted as a planning application.

Separate enforcement investigations have been authorised for the existing site.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Proposal seeks to amend approved scheme (TCP/14525S). The seven units remain on the same footprint. Terrace split in height at 2 units, 2 units and 3 units. Oriel type bays at ground floor and canopies to main entrance door. Brick construction with slate roofs. Some tile hanging. Two storey with accommodation in roof giving three storeys but reading generally as two. Dormer details not clear but are sited on both front and back elevations. Access by paths, car parking off site.

Moorings are shown to the placed alongside and on a new finger pontoon.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

The site is shown outside a designated development envelope but within the policy area T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation).

"Planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites, as defined on the proposals map, will be approved where the following criteria can be met:

(a) they adjoin or are directly related to the existing built facilities;

(b) they do not detract from the surroundings;

(d) new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area."

D1 - Standards of Design

TR7 - Highway Considerations for New Developments

TR7 Zone 4 - Car Park (0 to 100% requirement)

C11 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation

G7 - Development on Unstable Land

G6 - Development in Areas Liable to Flooding

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer advises that there are no highway implications within this development.

English Nature advise that the application will not have a significant effect (as described under Regulation 48 (3) of the Conservation (Habitats C) Regulations 1994) on the nearby international sites.

Council's Ecology Officer comments that "the site lies close to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation C200. A part of the SINC is vulnerable to increased dredging and pontoons within Island Harbour but I have no comments to make at this stage in relation to the current proposals".

The Environment Agency has no objection but recommends that a condition to flood defence maintenance be placed on the development and to advise the applicants that the river Medina is a statutory main river and works within 8 metres of the top of the bank require their consent.

Southern Water comment that a water supply can be provided for the proposed development as and when required, and with regard to drainage they comment:

"This application appears to be only a substitution of house types which would not increase the load on the sewers. The plan indicates an ' existing treatment plant' on the site. I believe this refers to an adopted pumping station originally constructed to serve the Island Harbour development. Capacity for the complete development should have been allowed for in the design of the pumping station. In 'Sewers for Adoption - 5th Edition' it is recommended that no habitable buildings are located within 15 metres of a pumping station to minimise the risk of odour, noise and nuisance. We interpret this distance as from the perimeter fence. Some of the other buildings shown on the development plan do not comply with this recommendation. I have no record of any sewerage incidents in this area possibly because only the pumping station and associated rising main are the responsibility of Southern Water."

The Council's Contaminated Land Officer comments:

"I have recently reviewed your application for a terrace of seven houses for which I understand outline consent has already been granted some fifteen years ago. I visited the site and observed several thousands of tons of 'earth' on the site of 'Phase 2' of the Island Harbour development. I am concerned that this material might not be sufficiently 'clean' to be used in a residential development with gardens. I would therefore like to see some soil samples analysed for the ICRCL suite of contaminants and for the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and sent to this department to verify the suitability of the material to be used. It would also be helpful to tell us the source(s) of the material that has been deposited there. I enclose a list of laboratories for your convenience."

He later confirms, following the receipt of a contamination report, that the land is suitable for residential development.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

There has been a large number of representations on this application (some of which are from the same author) and Members are reminded that the full contents can be viewed at my office.

There has been 37 letters of representation, 10 of which are from the Island Harbour Residents Society Ltd and 6 from one resident.

Letters of objection/comments were concerned with:

1. Ownership and applicant

2. Base plans incorrect

3. Advertisement brochure being incorrect

4. Trees to be planted are not shown

5. Scheme moving away from original consent

6. Violations of rights of original Section 52 Agreement holders and need to consult to any change to Section 52 Agreement

7. Problems with existing drains on site

8. Consequences of new berth spaces

9. Concern with pylon

10. Description of changes was given

11. Buildings at different levels

12. Need to dredge the marina

13. Concern with the level of use of Mill Lane since the first 29 houses were built.

14. Construction traffic and effect on Mill Lane

15. Houses are larger creating more rubbish and parking

16. Gabion wall removes potential for slipway

17. Levelling of ground

18. Health and safety issues

19. 42 week restriction must continue

20. Application may prejudice comprehensive redevelopment of the area

21. Depth of marina is too shallow

22. Removal of hip roof

23. Need for additional car parking spaces

24. Ground stability problem on reclaimed land

25. Filling in the marina with soil

26. Estuary is valuable wild life habitat

27. Reduction of light and view

28. Safety of existing boats

29. Hours of operation

30. History of planning approvals directs this development should be refused

31. Brick samples

32. Disposal of dredging material on nearby land.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated.

EVALUATION

After some toing and froing and the receipt of correct plans the application seeks to amend the original scheme for 96 units (TCP/14525S) in two ways - change of seven terraced houses design and a change in the siting of the associated moorings.

During negotiation the scheme proposed will be for holiday accommodation as opposed to the 42 week restriction that currently exists. (For information the 42 week occupation is not linked to a holiday use).

In essence units themselves have been agreed previously as an amendment to the approved scheme. However, the addition of dormers will effectively make an amendment on an amendment which took the proposal away from the original permission to a degree that a separate planning application was required.

Seven units pick up the overall theme of the existing 41 units being of a similar scale and mass and keeping to the original footprint. The roofs sit as a large addition given a suppressed feel to the accommodation below. Typical of fisherman type cottages. The dormers on each roof oppose this concept being a little large, but overall sitting comfortably. Tile hanging bricks and slate add an acceptable variety without becoming too fussy.

In determining application of this nature the starting point is whether or not in principle the development complies with policy. Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) allocates the site for such a use. In fact it follows close to the original permission that is still extant. That is the remaining 55 units could be built today without recourse to the Local Planning Authority.

I believe that the design, although moving away from the original concept, is acceptable. The development may be a catalyst for completing a scheme that needs to be completed.

The Environment Agency picks up the concern regarding the possible flooding in 2060 if existing defences are not maintained. By an appropriate condition require maintenance then the requirement of policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) can be safeguarded.

On site there appears to have been some self seeding and colonisation by plants. If permission is forthcoming then these can be covered by landscaping condition.

Land stability appears to be superficial in that the concerns relate to fill rather than the whole area moving. I anticipate that this will be a Building Control matter. The edge of the land will be distinguished by a gabion wall rather than sheet piling. This will safeguard the nature conservation interests of the nearby European designated sites (lack of noise) as well as the adjoining SINC. The Ecology Officer has no further comment to make on the effect of this development on those interests. If the overall development progresses northwards then I believe the impacts of the SINC may be greater.

The overall development to the south has worked well and that the majority of car parking is off site (away from housing) with a narrow road restricting this I feel that this concept shall continue. The area is in Zone 4 parking considering there is a requirement of 0 to 100% parking. Holiday makers are unlikely to have more than one car so an additional seven spaces in the existing car park will help to avoid cars cluttering the road network.

The original scheme for 96 units received confirmation from the Highways Department that the private road network was acceptable for the full development. They make no further comment on this application.

Part of the original concept of the scheme was to make this area a holiday area for sailors of yachts/boats and accordingly a restriction was put upon the permission requiring that the mooring space should be provided for each holiday unit. Making a mooring space available per unit will carry this concept forward.

A contamination report has been sought from the Agents and it has recently been confirmed by the Council's Contaminated Land Officer that the area is acceptable for residential development.

Brick samples have been submitted and appear of good quality and akin to other bricks used within the former development.

Since the completion of the original Section 52 Agreement Government advice is to restrict use by conditions rather than legal agreement. In this instance the holiday restriction and moorings do not need to be covered by legal agreement (Section 106).

Although the development ties in with the original development it does not prejudice its further implementation I believe it can stand alone and be granted planning permission in its own right.

Drainage matters are best dealt with at Building Control stage. Southern Water confirm the sewage capacity for the pumping station. Buildings are not set away from the pumps.

There are, as previous, no restrictions on the size of boat to be used and therefore at this stage capital dredging of the marina is not anticipated. MAFF licences may be required if dredging occurs.

It remains my opinion that any third party rights such as easements, agreements and covenants that are made between the interested parties are not overridden or removed by this planning application which is concerned with land use.

Additional information shows the distribution of existing mooring but more importantly this application also includes a new pontoon giving the comfort that Members sought.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that this development will not have a significant impact on the area affecting the visual and residential amenity. The nature conservation interests are safe guarded by condition and the proposal calls for policies containing the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	The accommodation provided in the development hereby approved shall be used for holiday purposes only. Reason: To ensure that the development remains for holiday purposes and to comply with Policies T1 (Tourism) and T3 (Holiday Accommodation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The berth/mooring spaces shown on drawing D7 reviewed on 12 January 2004 shall be provided on a pro rata basis before each unit is occupied. That is before unit 1 is occupied a mooring spaces has to be provided in the space shown 1 to 7 on the plan, before unit 2 is occupied 2 spaces have to be provided in the spaces shown 1 to 7 on the plan etc. Reason: To ensure that adequate mooring spaces are provided for the holiday units and to ensure that the development retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
4	The allocated space pursuant to condition 3 shall be for the sole use of the occupants of the holiday units hereby approved when the units hereby approved are in occupation. Reason: To ensure that the development retains a link to the Marina and to comply with Policy T6 (Permanent Holiday Accommodation) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
5	A new area of land adjoining and abutting the existing car park shall be constructed in similar materials and provided for an additional seven spaces before the units hereby approved are first occupied. Reason: To ensure that adequate car parking spaces are provided without the need to park on the private roads and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
6	Details of a scheme of maintenance for existing flood defences shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority before the last unit hereby approved is occupied. Such a scheme shall be implemented within one year of the last unit being occupied. Reason: To ensure that the land term protection against flooding is protected and to comply with Policy G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
7	Details of the storage of refuse shall be submitted prior to first occupation for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8	No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	Details of the dormer window finishes shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority before the development has begun. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development complies with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
10	No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant]. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No balcony or other raised external amenity area shall be used for the drying or airing of clothes. Reason: To help ensure that the design of the buildings are not compromised by unsightly additions and to comply with Policy D7 (Standards of Design) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
12	The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to staff of the County Archaeological Centre and shall enable them to observe all groundwork and to record features of archaeological significance. Notification of the opening up and information as to whom the archaeologist should contact on site should be given in writing to the address below not less than 14 days before the commencement of any work: County Archaeological Officer County Archaeological Centre 61 Clatterford Road Carisbrooke NEWPORT Isle of Wight PO30 1NZ Reason: In order to ensure access by specified archaeologists during the permitted operations and to comply with Policy B9 (Protection of Archaeological Heritage) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works approved pursuant to condition 10 above have been completed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice, unless otherwise in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced before the end of the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/25652/A P/01500/03 Parish/Name: Gurnard Ward: Gurnard

Registration Date: 28/07/2003 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. A. Pegram Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: J D Bradley

Continued use of land & building for paint ball games centre

Cats Copse, West View Road, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

This is a minor application which has attracted a number of letters of representation and raises a number of issues to be resolved. Furthermore, during recent discussions the local member, Cllr Mundy expressed concern regarding the proposal, particularly the potential disturbance of nearby residents and the impact of the use on the flora and fauna within the woodland.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of planning applications due to outstanding consultations and case officer workload.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application site comprises a field with area of approximately 4.3 hectares bounded to north and east by an area of woodland of approximately 2.8 hectares. The site is located to west of Rew Street and is accessed over West View Road.

West View Road is flanked on either side by residential properties along approximately half its length with the westernmost of these properties approximately 100 metres from the application site. The road also serves a commercial property at its western end and terminates at field gate, immediately in front of these premises, which gives access to the application site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Application seeks consent for continued use of land and building as a paintball games centre. Container providing storage facility and toilets is located adjacent southern boundary of field.

Submitted plans indicate that approximately half of the woodland is used as paintball area and includes siting of two temporary timber structures and a number of tyres used as base camps. The remainder of the woodland is designated as “no go areas”. Information accompanying the submission indicates that games are held on Saturdays and Sundays and occasionally one day during the week. Events start at 1100 hours and are concluded by 1430 hours with the average number of people taking part between 12 and 18, with maximum number of participants not exceeding 20. Parking is provided on hard standing area immediately adjacent the southern boundary of the field.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is located outside the development boundaries defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan and adjoins, but is not within, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Heritage Coast. The woodland forming part of the application site is an ancient

woodland, designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Relevant policies of the plan are considered to be as follows:

S4 – The countryside will be protected from inappropriate development.

G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements

G4 – General Locational Criteria for Development.

G10 – Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Uses

C1 – Protection of Landscape Character.

C8 – Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration

C11 – Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.

C12 – Development Affecting Trees and Woodland

P5 – Reducing the Impact of Noise

L1 – Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside

L9 – Noisy Sports

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highway Engineer considers there to be no highway implications.

Council's Ecology Officer advises that ancient woodland is an important and vulnerable habitat where heavy trampling causes compaction and damages the ground flora, and loud noises can be disturbing to wildlife. He considers that, in general, activities such as paintballing are unacceptable in ancient woodland sites and refers to guidelines for good environmental practice for such activities which have been produced by English Nature in consultation with the European Paintball Sports Federation. These guidelines contain the following advice in respect of ancient semi-natural woodland:

"Where damage to wildlife would result, English Nature would usually advise against granting planning permission. Planning conditions may be attached to successful planning applications to safeguard damage to the site."

In the case of the current application, the Ecology Officer notes that approximately 50% of the wood is used for paintball games and comments that Cats Copse is a small wood and the degree to which it can accept impact is limited and, as such, this could cause unacceptable damage to the wood and should be opposed. In terms of the ecological issue, he considers that this relates to the degree of damage and whether or not it is acceptable and will remain so in the future. Notwithstanding these comments, he suggests that, if the proposal is considered acceptable on other grounds, then planning conditions must be applied in order to minimise the impact on wildlife. In this respect, he advises that it would be necessary to ensure that impacts do not increase significantly and, therefore, recommends that any consent should be time limited to three years in order to reassess the impacts in due course. At

present, trampling is confined to clearly defined paths within the paintballing area. The Ecology Officer recommends that the following issues are addressed by planning conditions should Members be minded to approve the application:

1. No-go areas within northern and western parts of woodland should be maintained and well identified by demarcation.

2. Use of the site should be restricted to between the hours of 1100 to 1430, and to not more than three days a week, with numbers of people attending restricted to a maximum of 20 on any one occasion.

3. Operations should be in accordance with guidelines of the UK Paintball Sports Federation (UKPSF).

4. On expiry of the consent the use of the site and associated developments should be discontinued and all structures removed from the wood unless prior written approval has been granted for a further period of the use by the Local Planning Authority. At such time, the wood should be reassessed in order to determine whether the impact remains acceptable.

Environmental Health Manager considers that, having regard to the lengths of time that each event takes, along with the time of day when they occur, he does not anticipate any significant problems with this proposal in general. However, he comments that there is potential for disturbance from the use of thunder flashes, but this will be reduced by the distance from the nearest dwelling, and will also depend upon the strength of the explosives. He suggests that it is impossible to state with any certainty whether any complaints are likely to be justified or not but, on balance, raises no objection at this stage. In this respect, he questions whether a temporary permission would be appropriate in order to assess the impacts of the use over a reasonable period of time.

Comments have been received from the Forestry Commission providing information on the government's forestry policy which they consider may be relevant to consideration of this application, and point out that their role is to provide factual information and that it is not their intention to express any views either in support of or against the application. They advise that ancient woodland is irreplaceable and the government's forestry policies discourage development that results in its loss, unless there are overriding public benefits arising from the development. They provide policy extracts from two documents which indicate that there is a general presumption against the conversion of woodland to any other land use unless there are overriding public benefits, for example to restore important semi-natural habitats, and that areas occupied by semi-natural woodland should not be reduced. They advise that the value of ancient woodlands relates to the fact that they have never been converted to another land use and so retain some flora and fauna of our primordial woodland. I am advised that Cats Copse is an ancient and semi-natural, now rare type of woodland and very special in ecological terms. It is suggested that it may be desirable to ensure the continued welfare of this woodland by consenting to the continual use of the land for paintball games on the condition that the owners enter into an appropriate woodland grant scheme.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurnard Parish Council object to application on grounds that this business operations involved amounts to unsuitable use and abuse of the countryside, resulting in the destruction of ancient woodland, that use creates an unacceptable level of noise pollution, including thunder flashes and has a number of environmental concerns. The parish council also express their disapproval of yet another retrospective application.

A further communication has been received from the Parish Council raising the following issues:

Games have restarted and sessions are noisy with loud thunder flashes being used.

Competitors are not staying within taped off areas as indicated to planning officers last year. The tapes are broken down and the bluebell and daffodil carpet is being decimated.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Application has attracted 7 letters fro local residents objecting to application on grounds which can be summarised as follows:

· Application site includes ancient woodland providing home to wide variety of wildlife – this habitat will be destroyed and level of noise generated by use will cause animals great distress and adversely affect nesting birds.

· Copse contains bluebells and other numerous species of wild flowers – trampled by people using copse for paint ball games.

· Use is causing damage to woodland – if business is stopped now, it may just recover – any longer and its history and wildlife will be lost for good.

· Area is classified as an AONB. Inappropriate location for this use – less damaging venues available.

· Operator sells food and drinks from site - need for licence to sell refreshments is questioned.

· Use has been operating without planning permission.

· Use should take place in an uninhabited area with suitable access – vehicles using West View Road are hazard to children and pets of people living in area.

· Noise, including shouting, whistling and explosions (thunder flashes) causes disturbance to nearby residents.

· No toilet facilities provided.

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether continued use of this woodland for paintball games would cause unacceptable damage to the habitat and ecological value of the woodland and whether use would cause unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents.

It is considered that the acceptability of this use is dependant on the potential for damage to the woodland, which, to a large extent, will depend on the degree of use involved, including the frequency of the activities and the number of people involved, and the ability of the woodland to recover from these activities. In this respect, English Nature has produced a leaflet on Paintball Games in Woodlands in which they advise that where damage to wildlife would result, they would usually advise against the granting of planning permission. However, they also advise that planning conditions may be attached to successful planning applications to safeguard against damage to the site. At present, the level of activities associated with the use of the application site for paintball games is relatively limited, both in terms of the frequency of the use and the number of people attending events.

Whilst his comments on this application are comprehensive, the Ecology Officer does not suggest that there is any overriding objection to the use of this woodland for paintball games, subject to the imposition of conditions on any consent requiring a number of safeguards which should ensure that any damage caused to the woodland is minimal and does not prejudice the wildlife habitat of the area in the longer term. These would include clearly identifying no go areas with appropriate demarcation, limiting the number of days and times events take place and the number of people taking part. In addition, the Ecology Officer has suggested that any permission should be limited for a period of three years, thereby enabling the impact of the use to be reassessed and, subject to the findings of this exercise, it would be possible for the authority to determine whether it would be appropriate to grant consent for a further period of the use. Whilst the Forestry Commission suggested that the applicant could enter into a Woodland Grant Scheme, following further discussions between the Woodland Officer and the Council's Ecology Officer, it is understood that the woodland is of an insufficient size to accommodate the paintball games and undertake any effective management under such a scheme.

Paintball game activities have the potential to cause disturbance to nearby residents by reason of the noise generated by the participants. In addition, it is understood that the activities undertaken at the application site include the use of thunder flash explosives. The nearest residential property to the application site is located approximately 100 metres to the east, along with other properties fronting West View Road. The Environmental Health Officer does not consider that these activities would be likely to cause significant problems, although he initially commented that the use of thunder flashes would have the potential to cause disturbance. However, I am advised by him, following further discussions with the operator of the paintball games, that he does not anticipate any significant problems from the use of the thunder flashes. This assessment is also based on the fact that an officer from Environmental Health has visited the site and witnessed the use of the thunder flashes which were not considered to cause excessive noise and would be unlikely to disturb nearby residents. Nevertheless, the operator has been informed that if noise problems did occur, then appropriate steps may be taken from a statutory noise nuisance point of view, although it is considered unlikely that this would be necessary. Notwithstanding these comments, he has also suggested that any permission granted should be for a temporary period of a appropriate length in order to enable the impacts of the use on nearby residents to be monitored and reassessed at a later date.

Whilst concern has been expressed by local residents regarding traffic movements associated with the use, I am satisfied that West View Road is of an adequate standard, particularly having regard to the level and frequency of the use, and that the proposal would not create significant hazards for other users of the road. In particular, in the absence of any objection from the Highway Engineer, I do not consider that refusal of the application on grounds of traffic generation would be justified.

HUMAN RIGHTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, it is considered that, having regard to the relatively limited scale of operations involved, the use of the site for paintball games is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the wildlife habitat of the woodland or the amenities of nearby residents and is, therefore, on balance acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued, all buildings and structures associated with the use permanently removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 March 2007 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, unless prior written consent has been obtained for a further period of the use. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the proposed use in view of Policies S6 (Standards of Design) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
2	This permission shall authorise the use of the land, edged red on the plan attached and forming part of this decision notice, for paintball games between 1100 hours and 1430 hours on a maximum of 3 days in each week and at no other time without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residents and to minimise the impact of the use on the wildlife habitat of the woodland in accordance with Strategic Policy S10 (Areas of Designated or Defined Scientific, Nature Conservation, Archaeological or Landscape Value) and Policies G10 (Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Uses), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise), L1 (Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside) and L9 (Noisy Sports) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
3	The maximum number of people taking part in the paintball games shall not exceed 20 at any time and all operations shall be carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the UK Paintball Sports Federation (UKPSF). Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and nearby residents and to minimise the impact of the use on the wildlife habitat of the woodland in accordance with Strategic Policy S10 (Areas of Designated or Defined Scientific, Nature Conservation, Archaeological or Landscape Value) and Policies G10 (Potential Conflict between Proposed Development and Existing Uses), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise), L1 (Informal Recreation Provision in the Countryside) and L9 (Noisy Sports) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	Within three months of the date of this permission, a detailed survey of the woodland shall be carried out and a report produced by a competent qualified ecological consultant. Such report shall identify the ecological impacts of the paintball game activities and measures to be implemented to restrict to a minimum such impacts. Reason: To safeguard the nature conservation value of the woodland and to comply with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) and C11 (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	Within one month of the date of this planning permission measures to clearly identify and prevent access to the "no go" areas detailed on the plan attached to and forming part of this decision notice shall be implemented in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, such agreed measures shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the agreed details for the duration of the authorised use. Reason: To safeguard the nature conservation value of the woodland and to comply with policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration) and C11 (Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/26055 P/02523/03 Parish/Name: Newport Ward: Carisbrooke East

Registration Date: 17/12/2003 - Outline Planning Permission

Officer: Miss. S. Gooch Tel: (01983) 823568

Applicant: Mr E Raymond

Outline for a detached house; formation of vehicular access

8 Redwing Close, Newport, Isle Of Wight, PO305SW

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Local Member, Cllr V Morey, contacted the office concerned with regard to limited space available and overlooking of neighboring gardens.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application, the processing of which has taken eleven weeks to date and has gone beyond the prescribed eight week period for determination of applications due to the need for committee consideration.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Proposal is set within a cul-de-sac comprising of a small cluster of dwellings forming part of the Carisbrooke Estate. Dwellings comprise of 1970’s style semi detached properties and detached bungalows. Forward of the proposed site is a double detached garage one half of which serves number 8. Site is currently within the amenity space for number 8 and within the development envelope.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/16228/Y – Consent granted April 1980 for 28 houses and 15 bungalows (Phase V), Plots 104 – 146 inclusive.

DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for a detached house and formation of vehicular access. Matters to be taken into consideration at this stage are the siting and means of access with all other matters received for subsequent approval. Proposal will sit in the amenity space North of number 8 and will have a plot size of approximately 10.50 metres wide by 17 metres deep. Existing garage for number 8 will be transferred to the new plot and a new drive will be formed to a vehicle/garage space, between the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling, to serve number 8.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan are considered to be as follows:

S1 New development will be concentrated within existing urban areas

S7 There is a need to provide for the development of at least 8000 housing units over the plan period. While a large proportion of this development will occur on sites with existing allocations or planning approvals, or on currently unidentified sites, enough new land will be allocated to enable this target to be met and to provide a range of choice and affordability

G1 Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages

G4 General Locational Criteria for Development

D1 Standards of Design

D2 Standards for Development within the Site

H5 Infill Development

TR7 Highway Consideration for New Development

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Highways Engineer raises no objections providing appropriate conditions are imposed.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

Not applicable.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Nine letters of objections received from neighbours raising issues which can be summarised as follows:

· Site is restricted and detached dwelling would result in the overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the area

· Sub-division would result in plot sizes out of keeping within those in the area, cramped appearance and would be detrimental to the built environment.

· Difficult to see how a dwelling and vehicle access can be achieved whilst leaving adequate amenity space around the dwelling.

· Proposal would set a dangerous precedent for other developments.

· Additional traffic

· Previous work carried out is for accommodating family and not for profit

· Plans are inaccurate and not to scale

· Drainage will be seriously affected as it passes under the area

· Proposal could cause overlooking

CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications are anticipated

EVALUATION

Determining factors in considering application are whether site is of adequate size to accommodate development compatible with the surroundings and whether proposal would detract from the amenities of the area and neighbouring occupiers.

Policy H5 states that ‘Planning applications for infill residential development within development envelopes will only be approved where they will not unduly damage the amenity of neighboring property and the surrounding area. Where, in the opinion of the Council, an infill development would lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the surrounding area, the application will be refused or required to be appropriately modified.

The area comprises of semi detached dwellings and bungalows however no definitive pattern of development. I am satisfied that site is of adequate size to accommodate an additional dwelling and the mix of dwellings in the area provide a degree of flexibility as to how this could be achieved. In this respect, whilst submitted plans show a detailed dwelling, I consider that it may be more desirable to link the new house to the existing dwelling. This would be achieved by provision of a car port or garage between the dwellings and would maintain what is considered to be an acceptable layout and provision of parking facilities. Proposal would be an adequate distance from neighbouring properties and would be unlikely to leave any adverse impacts. In terms of overlooking and loss off privacy proposal does not include design and therefore type of dwelling, position of windows and rooms is not currently known, however, this would be dealt with when considering an application for Approval of Reserved Matters or detailed permission.

Objection received about inaccurate plans, however after taking various measurements on site I am of the opinion that the submitted ordnance survey plans provide a relatively realistic and accurate portrayal of dwelling and amenity space surrounding it. The statement about the application 'is for profit' cannot be taken into account as this is not a planning consideration.

Concerns have been raised that proposal will seriously affect the drainage as it runs underneath. However, this could be dealt with by the Building Control Department.

Taking into account no objections were received by the Highways Department I am of the opinion that proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the safety of all road users.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having given due regard and appropriate weight to all material considerations referred to in this report, I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring properties or detract from the visual amenities and character of the locality. In view of the above the proposal is considered to satisfy policies D1 (Standards of Design), H5 (Infill Development), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) and G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - outline - A01
2	Time limit - reserved - A02
3	Approval of the details of the design and external appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: In order to secure a satisfactory development and be in accordance with Policies S6 (Standards of Design), D1 (Standards of Design), D2 (Standards of development within this site), D3 (Landscaping), TR7 (Highway Consideration for New Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the amenity value of the area to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No building shall be occupied until the means of vehicular access thereto has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the proposed development and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plans.
6	The existing garage and additional parking hereby permitted shall be kept available at all times for the parking of cars and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular and to comply with Policy D12 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

TCP/26057 P/02558/03 Parish/Name: Wootton Ward: Wootton

Registration Date: 13/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

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

Applicant: Mr R E Lale

Retention of boundary fencing

10 Woodlands Crescent, Wootton Bridge, Ryde, Isle Of Wight, PO334JD

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Report requested by local Member, Councillor Abraham, during processing of application, as he does not agree with Officer Recommendation.

PROCESSING INFORMATION

This is a minor application. Processing of this application has taken 7 weeks if determined at this Committee. A determination at this moment in time would mean the application has been dealt with within the prescribed time limits.

LOCATION & SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Application relates to a detached bungalow on the eastern side of Woodlands Crescent, which is a cul-de-sac off St Edmunds Walk. The site is located on a good sized corner plot with two road frontages. There is a mix of bungalows, chalet bungalows and two-storey dwellings in the locality, with predominantly open plan frontages. Immediately adjacent the development land falls in a southerly and easterly direction.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/7740/L – Proposed estate layout – approved March 1970. Planning condition imposed to control future erection of enclosures that project in front of the building line or lines of the main walls of the main or principal building erected on the land. Also condition restricting fences/wall between front wall of properties and rear of footpaths of estate roads.

Relates to neighbouring property:

TCP/24015 - Proposed 1.82 metre high boundary fence – refused April 2001.

TCP/24015/A – Proposed 1.82 fencing (revised scheme) – approved January 2004.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full consent is sought for retention of close boarded boundary fence 1.8 metres high which runs from the south-east corner of the garage for a distance of 4.93 metres then turns through 90 degrees and runs along close to the edge of the pavement for 9.3 metres, turning through 90 degrees again to enclose the rear garden. The fence is finished in a dark stain. Letter submitted with application: personal covenant on property states owners must erect and maintain fence along the boundaries, and fence effectively encloses rear garden, providing security, privacy and safety when children and pets are in the garden.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Site is within the Wootton development envelope boundary. Policies G4 (General Locational Criteria for Development), D1 (Standards of Design), D4 (External Building Works) are relevant.

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

No Highway Implications - does not affect forward visibility.

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Letter and accompanying petition submitted by applicant. Letter requests take into account overwhelming support of neighbours who have signed petition stating no objection to boundary fence. Also points out there are other examples in the area of fencing beyond the building line which are far less in keeping with open plan conditions. Petition confirming no objection to boundary fence in present position signed by 30 neighbours (23 properties).

One letter from neighbouring resident;

· "Whilst I have no objection to the proposal, I would consider it unfair as I was refused planning on having a boundary fence erected that close to the pavement. I was told that this is an open planned estate and I should have a boundary fence to comply with this ruling. I am waiting for your decision with great interest."

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

No crime and disorder implications anticipated.

EVALUATION

Determining factors are considered to be policy and principle, and whether siting of fence will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area, and potential for setting precedence.

Policy G4 requires applications to harmonise with their surrounding and be of sympathetic character and materials.

Policy D1 states that development will be permitted only where it maintains or, wherever possible, enhances the quality and character of the built environment. Planning applications will be expected to respect the visual integrity of the site and the distinctiveness of the surrounding area and retain, maintain, enhance and/or create open spaces, views or other features which significantly contribute to the area.

Policy D4 requires applications to relate well to the character of the area.

Application property occupies prominent corner plot. When standing adjacent to the fence and looking down Woodlands Crescent in an easterly direction, the fence appears alien in the street scene due to its proximity to the highway. In the main the outlook up and down the road is of pleasant vista, with the original open plan character maintained. Whilst I note that there is some interruption of the open plan concept within the road, none of the other boundary treatments in the immediate locality are sited to appear as prominent or intrusive.

There are other 1.8 fences in the wider locality, particularly in St Edmunds Walk; some of these have been erected close to the highway. I also recognise that due to the orientation of the application site garden, it is totally reasonable to have some secure boundary treatment.

Given the prominence of the fence, its proximity to the highway and the fact that there are no similar structures in the immediate vicinity, I am of the opinion that its siting is detrimental to the street scene and visual amenities of the area. This recommendation is consistent with the neighbouring property, No 8, whose boundary treatment, (not erected at the time of my site visit) has been approved following revised scheme to move 3.45 metre off back edge of pavement. Case Officer has endeavoured to seek revised siting but applicant has requested application be processed as submitted.

In view of the above, the impact in terms of the character of the estate is, in my opinion, unacceptable and likely to set a precedent. The cumulative effect of an ad hoc approach with differing boundary treatments would fundamentally alter the character of the estate and have a serious effect on the visual amenities of the area.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

Having due regard and appropriate weight to the material considerations, I am of the opinion that the retention of the fence in its current position would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and is likely to set a precedent for development of a similar nature. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy and I recommend accordingly with further recommendation in respect of authorising appropriate negotiation or enforcement proceedings.

1 RECOMMENDATION - REFUSAL

Conditions/Reasons:

The site occupies a visually prominent location and the boundary fence as sited is contrary to the original concept of the layout of the estate and detracts from the pleasant open character and appearance of the area. In consequence, the development is contrary to G4 (General Locational for Development), D4 (External Building Works) and Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

The development creates an undesirable precedent which would make it more difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist further similar proposals, the cumulative effect of which would create conditions likely to adversely affect the character of the area contrary to Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

2 RECOMMENDATION

Option 1

To invite an application to re-site the fence compatible with neighbouring approval so development accords with policy - Time for submission 28 days. If application not forthcoming to serve Enforcement Notice with time for compliance 2 months.

Option 2

Serve Enforcement Notice to remove fence - Time for compliance 2 months.

Recommend Option 1.

TCP/26094 P/00191/04 Parish/Name: Cowes Ward: Cowes Castle West

Registration Date: 29/01/2004 - Full Planning Permission

Officer: Mr. G. Hepburn Tel: (01983) 823575

Applicant: South East England Development Agency

Industrial park with associated facilities; parking area

land between Spinlock Ltd and Bookers, Three Gates Road, Cowes, PO31

REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of Head of Planning Services and to show that although the application is being dealt with quickly, the same considerations have been given to the application.

PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This application if determined at this meeting will have taken 4 weeks 4 days, well within the 13 week processing time.

LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The area of land forms a corner plot on Three Gates Road leading into the newly constructed residential land to the north. It is 0.68 hectares in size but reads with the other land of the industrial estate.

The land is flat, having the appearance of being scraped and colonised by weeds and grasses, with three or four earth mounds being made from the resultant spoil.

The site is bordered to the west by a landscaped footpath, to the east by the access road into the site, which in turn is abutted by a row of mature trees and to the south by Three Gates Road. The surrounding uses are allocated industrial land to the north, car park to Bookers to the east, Siemens industrial land to the south and an industrial estate to the west. There are no residential properties within the close vicinity.

On site there is no landscaping.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TCP/7081/U P/701/98 - 164 dwellings, 2 two-storey industrial units (class B1 and B2), associated parking, access roads off Three Gates Road and Seaview Road and pedestrian link scheme. Application of reserved matters approved 5 August 1998.

Prior to that, application for the outline for the above. First approval in February 1995.

DETAILS OF APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of an industrial building and associated parking and landscaping.

The proposed building is described by the applicants as simple, elegant q-board clad in silver grey metal wall and roof panels, low pitch roof facilitating constant temperature control, filigree framework giving visual depth and compositional control of entrances, lighting and company logo.

The proposal will widen the public footpath, provide chillers and other plants to the rear of the building adjoining the public footpath, provide a service yard contained at the rear of the building by security fencing and soft planting and trees to mirror those on the opposite side of the estate road.

The proposal shows forty car spaces and two lorry parking spaces with a zone for additional car parking of thirteen spaces.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN/POLICY

Within designated development envelope, the plan is specified/allocated as E5(8) Industrial Land. This is designated as an employment site.

Policy E5 states "planning proposals for employment development will be considered in principle on employment sites allocated on the proposals map as set out in Appendix B".

Appendix B reads:

"E5(8) land north of Three Gates Road, Cowes, an area of four hectares (9.9 acres) at Broadfields Farm north of Three Gates Road is to be developed for B1 businesses, B2 general industrial or storage of B8 distribution uses.

Access to this site is to be off Three Gates Road and a landscaped buffer strip of land shall be reserved between this development and the proposed residential development to the north. Access to the housing development to the north will be required, as will a heavily landscaped buffer strip between these two proposed developments."

CONSULTEE RESPONSES

Southern Water comment;

"This site is the first building on a larger industrial development. A foul sewer to serve the whole development has been designed, constructed and is covered by a S104 adoption agreement. In due course the foul sewer will be adopted by Southern Water. Disposal of surface water is being incorporated within the highway drainage and will not be our responsibility. The point and details of the proposed connection to the sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. No trade effluent can be discharged either directly and indirectly to the public sewer without the formal consent of Southern Water.

A water supply can be provided for the proposed development as and when required."

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL COMMENTS

None at the time of writing the report.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

None at the writing of the report.

CRIME & DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The relevant Officer comments:

"The general area is conducive to the proposed development and will therefore not attract undue attention.

Some proposed trees, seen on the East and South elevations should be shrubs as surveillance of various important security areas is compromised.

It is possible from the drawings supplied that the first floor and possibly the roof is accessible via some of the external filigree. This is an area that needs to be discussed with the architect.

The west boundary runs parallel to a public footpath. The residential estate, which is just north of this site, has suffered damage and nuisance the majority of which has emanated from the use of the public footpaths running through the estate. The proposal is to improve the footpath and turn it into a footpath/cycle way. If it was possible I would like to see the footpath closed, as there is now a public footpath to the east of the site. Footpaths running through the rear of residential and industrial estates are nationally the source of damage and nuisance problems. Footpaths should be wide and open to general surveillance, not tucked away from vision. Having described what they should look like they are still a source of problems as reflected in the local new development. If the footpath is to stay then good quality fencing is required and all vegetation removed to give a completely open rear aspect. I know it is not part of the planning consideration but SP Systems should have a CCTV system that covers, at least, the secured rear yard.

There is no problem with the proposal in theory there is a few details that could be discussed with the architect to improve the current proposal as far as crime and disorder is concerned."

EVALUATION

You will see from the registration and processing details that this application has been speedily processed and brought forward to Members within a five week period. However this has not been at the expense of giving the application a full consideration, and is before Members to show that the full consideration has been given.

The starting point for any application of this nature is to assess whether it falls within the plan led development system as advocated through PPG1 General Policy and Principles which was issued in February 1997. This site de facto is an allocated site and accordingly there is no objection in principle to this development.

It is anticipated that any use of this site should fall in with the use classed as B1 (Businesses), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution). The proposed use by the applicant is B1 (Light Industrial) which is an acceptable use for this site.

The proposal seeks to create 47 jobs.

The main issues on this site are in the detail which I outline below.

1. Design

The design is governed somewhat by the use inside, which has to maintain a constant temperature. Passive solar heating/cooling, should be minimised. That is, there should be very few openings and the roof pitch should be shallow to reduce differential heatings. (That is, one side of the roof being heated by the sun while the other remains cool.) Therefore if external openings are minimised and the roof is of shallow pitch then a more controlled temperature can be obtained inside. This is critical in the process which is to be undertaken within the building.

However, it is necessary to have some penetrations to this building for associated office use, and these have been grouped together at the site entrance. These have been disguised with a glass curtain walling effect which gives a very simple functional appearance. Overall the building has deliberately hidden the details, hiding the roof behind a parapet wall and all openings etc behind the curtain wall described above. This gives an appearance of a very clean, tidy building and it appears to be "high tech". The principal access to the building is on the south-eastern corner at the access to the site. This effectively puts the principal element to the building away from Three Gates frontage towards its junction with the industrial estate road. The area of land in front of the building at the back of Three Gates Road is proposed to be landscaped, reflecting that on the other side of the junction. The design seems wholly appropriate for this entrance into the industrial estate.

2. Highways Including Car Parking

The application includes the road junction and estate road that fronts the site, and accordingly any requirements from the Highway Authority can be embodied as part of the conditions. During pre-application discussions, the issues were explored, and apart from some minor tweaking did appear satisfactory. The Highways requirements can be covered by a condition. The existing footpath to the west of the site is in a poor state at present, being difficult to access when wet. The proposal to widen this development to 2 metres will safeguard the majority of the existing landscaping to the east and west. Surface will be of a free-draining aggregate type and will run for the length of the site. The junction to Three Gates Road is important, and this detail can be covered by a condition. Likewise, cycle hoops can be added as a condition.

The following operational standards apply under the UDP, this site being in Zone 3.

B1 Offices - One car space per 20 sq m floor space.

- One lorry space per 1000 sq m floor space.

B1 Industrial - One car space per 25 sq m floor space

- One lorry space per 1000 sq m floor space.

The Council's policy specifies that 0 -75% of the required operational standards shall be provided on site. The building measures approximately 70 metres by 34 metres, giving the figure of 2,380 sq m. This generates the following maximum provision - 55 car parking spaces, 2 lorry parking spaces. The proposed site plan indicates 40 car spaces and 2 lorry spaces, with a zone for additional car parking space of 13 spaces. This meets this requirement.

3. Landscaping

Part of the original approval for this site included a buffer strip between the residential and industrial land which would link with the footpath/cycleway described above. To date this has not been constructed, although on site there is a considerable amount of spoil. This is outside the boundaries of the application site. Subject to Environmental Health concerns outlined below, there may not be a requirement to have a buffer strip in the location previously proposed. It may be in order that if there is noise generated at the site, a buffer strip is best placed as close as possible to the noise generation. As there will be substantial spoil from the site I propose as a condition that a 2 metre bund is placed to the north of the site, with this being turfed and some "reusable" landscape in place on the top. This will need to be covered by a condition, which will limit implementation of use until it is provided. I can see no reason why this would not be provided at the beginning of the development. The landscaping to the remainder of the site reflects that adjacent to Bookers and appears to be quite an attractive introduction to this industrial estate.

4. Drainage

There are no problems envisaged with this development, and can be covered by a condition.

5. Environmental Health

The operations/process internally will require separate licences etc from Environmental Health, and their course can run parallel to the processing of this application. There is no need to duplicate their controls in this matter. However, any smells and noise generated from the premises would be of concern, and accordingly it is important that the refrigeration and ventilation plant is correctly attenuated to minimise disturbance to any noise-sensitive properties. Discussions have taken place between Environmental Health and the applicant, and the matter can be covered by a condition. Depending on the level of noise and disturbance, consideration would have to be given to hours of operation, which from the applicant's point of view requires a 24 hour shift system. Further advice is awaited from Environmental Health. Any lighting associated with this use would have to be directed into the site and filtered to minimise inappropriate light spillage.

In summary, the development of this site for industrial uses on the lines of this application appears appropriate and facilitates the applicant in developing his business to provide another 47 jobs for the benefit of the community's economy.

HUMAN RIGHTS

In coming to this recommendation to grant planning permission consideration has been given to the rights set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The impacts this development might have on the owners/occupiers of the other property in the area and other third parties have been carefully considered. Whilst there may be some interference with the rights of these people this has to be balanced with the rights of the applicant to develop the land in the manner proposed. Insofar as there has been 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 proportionate to the legitimate aim in the public interest.

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

The development of this site for industrial purposes is appropriate and ties in with the allocation for E5 (Employment Sites) of the Unitary Development Plan and the design is an appropriate approach to the entrance of this industrial estate and accords with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the Unitary Development Plan. Details such as highway considerations, cycling, drainage, landscaping and environmental health are covered by conditions TR7 (Highway Considerations for New Development), TR16 (Parking Policies and Guidelines), TR17 (Public Rights of Way), TR6 (Cycling and Walking), D3 (Landscaping), D14 (Light Spillage), P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise), U11 (Infrastructure and Service Provision) of the Unitary Development Plan and can be covered by Planning conditions. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL

Conditions/Reasons:

1	Time limit - full - A10
2	Submission of samples - S03
3	Before the use commences, a scheme showing details of the facilities to be provided for the treatment and extraction of fumes and smells from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works forming part of the approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the use commences (and shall be effectively maintained thereafter). Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers in adjoining properties and to comply with Policies P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
4	The premises shall not be used for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy E9 (Employment Development) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
5	No industrial process as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) shall be carried on at the premises outside the building(s) hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with Policy P1 (Pollution) and D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
6	No equipment, raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials, derelict vehicles, vehicle bodies or waste materials shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas identified for those purposes on the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the site and the visual amenities of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy D1 (Standards of Design) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
7	Development shall not begin until details of the design, surfacing and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses and car parking area, together with details of thee means of disposal of surface water drainage therefrom have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway access and drainage for the proposed dwellings and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
8	The use hereby permitted shall not commence until space has been laid out within the site and in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing] for 10 bicycles to be parked. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than that approved in accordance with this condition. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply Policy TR7 (Highway Considerations) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
9	No development shall take place until a scheme of landscape implementation and maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to comply with Policy D3 (Landscaping) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
10	No machinery shall be operated that is audible from outside the site, no industrial process (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987) shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: 0700 to 2100 hours Monday to Fridays 0800 to 1800 hours Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area in general and adjoining residential property in particular. or In the interests of the amenities of the adjoining residential property and to comply with Policy P5 (Reducing the Impact of Noise) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
11	No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water from the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be completed before any unit hereby permitted is first occupied. Reason: To ensure that surface water run-off is satisfactorily accommodated and to comply with policies G6 (Development in Areas Liable to Flooding) and G7 (Development on Unstable Land) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
12	None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate system of sewage disposal is provided for the development and to comply with Policy U11 (Infrastructure and Services Provision) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
13	The cycleway hereby approved shall be constructed to a standard agreed with the Highway Engineer of this Authority in writing, and shall be implemented before the use hereby approved is first brought into operation. Reason: To ensure that the cycleway comes forward as part of the development and to comply with Policy TR7 (Highway Requirements) of the IW Unitary Development Plan.
14	Before the development hereby approved is first brought into use a landscape bun shall be placed to the immediate north of the site and shall be constructed to give a minimum height of 2 metres measured from the existing ground level, and shall be turfed with appropriate shrubs to be planted for a divisional screen. Appropriate shrubs shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

OTHER MATTERS NOT RELATING TO CURRENT PLANNING APPLICATIONS

(a) TCP/14463/D

Allegation of untidy land at Maryland, Colwell Chine Road, Freshwater

Officer: P Barker

Tel: (01983) 823573

Summary

To consider whether circumstances justifies the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring the removal of a number of motor vehicles, a touring caravan, and other items from the land.

Background

The land is question is part of the garden of a detached property called Maryland. There is planning permission for two dwellings on this property which has not been implemented. In 1991, 1996, and 2001, Section 215 Notices were served on this property with respect to semi-derelict motor vehicles, overgrown garden, and other items mainly of wood and metal which were in the area around the motor vehicles. On each occasion when Section 215 Notices have been served the owner has tidied up the property.

Section 215 of the 1990 Act empowers a Local Planning Authority to serve a notice on the owner and occupier of land if it appears to the Authority that the amenities of an area are “adversely affected by the condition of the land in the area.”

A further complaint has now been received regarding the condition of the land, and a visit by the Enforcement Officer has revealed four cars and one van in various stages of dilapidation, all of which are untaxed, together with a dilapidated white touring caravan and a great deal of other rubbish including gas bottles, rusting bicycles, metal, timber, a toilet bowl, a wash basin, and car wheels and tyres. Additionally the land is choked with bramble and weed. All five of the vehicles are full of material, some of which appears to be rubbish, and they appear to be being kept on the land purely for storage purposes.

Financial Implications

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

Options

To note the report but decide to take no action regarding the number of motor vehicles and other materials which are being stored on this land, as the degree of impact on the amenities of the area are not considered so severe as to justify service of a Notice under Section 215.

To note the contents of this report and accept that the site does by virtue of its present condition adversely affect the amenities of the area. Accordingly to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring

(a) the removal of a white Volvo Estate car D483 HPR, a blue Ford Escort convertible, no index plates, a grey Nissan car A111 EDL, a white freight Rover van E588 AWV, a red Volvo Estate G451 APK, a dilapidated white touring caravan, along with gas bottles, rusting bicycles, metal, timber, toilet bowl, a wash basin, car wheels and tyres, and other materials in or adjacent to the vehicles and caravan.

(b) Clearance of the land of bramble and weed infestation.

Time for compliance two months after the Notice takes effect.

Conclusion

From past dealings with the owner of this site, I do not believe that he will take any action to improve the appearance unless required to do so by way of the service of a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. In addition to being detrimental to the amenities of local residents this extremely untidy site is on a tourist route from the main road to the beach at Colwell Bay and it seriously detracts from the visual amenities of the area.

Human Rights

In coming to this recommendation to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the 1990 Act 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 Possession) of the European Convention on Human Rights; it is recognised that the action will be an interference with the owners human rights but this has to be balanced against the human rights of others. The action is felt to be proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

To note the contents of this report and accept that the site does by virtue of its present condition adversely affect the amenities of the area. Accordingly to serve a Notice under Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 requiring

(a) the removal of a white Volvo Estate car D483 HPR, a blue Ford Escort convertible, no index plates, a grey Nissan car A111 EDL, a white freight Rover van E588 AWV, a red Volvo Estate G451 APK, a dilapidated white touring caravan, along with gas bottles, rusting bicycles, metal, timber, toilet bowl, a wash basin, car wheels and tyres, and other materials in or adjacent to the vehicles and caravan.

(b) Clearance of the land of bramble and weed infestation.

Time for compliance two months after the Notice takes effect.

ANDREW ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services