PAPER B2

 

SCHEDULE OF APPEALS

 

1.

NEW APPEALS LODGED

 

 

 

TCP/25583/A

Mr P Shepherd against refusal for vehicular access and hard-standing at 77 Avenue Road, Sandown

 

 

TCP/24624/A

Ms S Peters against refusal of outline for detached house, land adjacent 7 Station Road, Sandown

 

 

TCP/8862/B

HSB Holdings against refusal for new access ramp and steps with balustrading at HSBC Bank, High Street, Sandown

 

 

TCP/22594/M

Mr & Mrs H Greenway against refusal of outline for a dwelling, Plot 27 Hillgrove, Ducie Avenue, Bembridge

 

 

TCP/25967

Mr & Mrs F Adduono against refusal of outline for a bungalow and garage, land adjacent 3 Plover Close, Sandown

 

2.

APPEALS WITHDRAWN

 

 

 

E/24579/B

Mr G W Blake against Enforcement Notice relating to division of storage building to preparation of fish and shellfish space at Blake’s Boathouse, The Esplanade, Ventnor

 

3.

HEARING/INQUIRY DATES

 

 

 

E/21784/A

Dr Ciccognani against Enforcement Notice relating to land at The Orchard, Undercliff Drive, St Lawrence.  Hearing to take place on 20 April 2004

 

 

 

 

4.

REPORT ON APPEAL DECISIONS

 

 

(a)

TCP/25193/A

Mrs L Poole against refusal for car port at 197 Fairlee Road, Newport

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 29 July 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 26 January 2004

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

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

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposed car port would stand very close to the footway and would appear wholly incongruous.

 

 

·         The proposed materials are inappropriate for a structure which would have such a prominent location in the street scene.

 

 

·         The proposal would seriously harm the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with G4 and D1.

 

 

 

 

 

(b)

TCP/17850/B

Mr D & Mrs V Harman against refusal for the formation of a vehicular access at Brookside, Main Road, Chillerton

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 14 August 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 26 January 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         Whether the development provides secure, safe conditions for all road users.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposed hardstanding is not of a suitable size and shape to allow vehicles to turn within the site.

 

 

·         Reversing out of the site would create dangers for road users, whilst reversing on to the site would cause disruption to traffic movements along the road.

 

 

·         A larger hardstanding would involve considerable excavation and retaining walls and is too uncertain to be feasible.

 

 

·         The visibility to the north is significantly less than required standards.

 

 

·         The proposal does not represent a safe access arrangement and would conflict with TR7.

 

 

·         The removal of parked cars on the highway and the greater safety available for the users of those vehicles are not sufficiently strong enough grounds for the creation of an unsafe access.

 

 

 

 

 

(c)

TCP/11822/P

Maritime & Leisure Investments Limited against refusal for change of use of ground floor from workshop/store (B2) to retail (A1) at The Duver Boatyard, The Duver, St Helens

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1) – 4 April 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 30 January 2004

 

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The effect of the proposal on the character of the area.

 

 

·         The effect of the loss of waterside industrial floor space.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The proposed use would be likely to attract a significant number of visitors and other customers from inland, resulting in car borne trips across The Duver.

 

 

·         Servicing the shop would add to vehicle movements along the narrow road.

 

 

·         The road has reasonable visibility and the additional vehicular movements would be unlikely to cause significant safety hazards.

 

 

·         The additional traffic movement and activity would detract significantly from the character of the locality and from its peaceful enjoyment by people walking in the area.

 

 

·         The proposal would significantly harm the character of the surrounding area and be contrary to G4 and G5. 

 

 

·         The proposed development would occupy a considerable proportion of the premises and would result in the significant loss of waterside industrial floor space and therefore does conflict with E7.

 

 

·         The site of the proposed shop exceeds what could reasonably be considered as ancillary to the tourism operation on this site and surroundings, and the proposal is contrary to R2.

 

 

·         The proposal is for the change of use of an existing building which adjoins development where the floor level meets the Environment Agency’s recommended levels, so there is no conflict with G6.

 

 

 

 

 

(d)

TCP/25444

Mrs C Blyth and Mr G Childs against refusal of outline for 4 dwellings and alteration to vehicular access, land adjacent 13 St Paul’s View Road, Newport

 

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 20 May 2003

 

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 2 February 2004

 

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

 

·         The density of the proposed development and its effect on the living conditions of its future occupiers.

 

 

·         The effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

 

 

·         The question of access for fire appliances.

 

 

·         The possible future development of adjoining land.

 

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

 

·         The density of the proposed development equates to 57 dwellings per hectare (dph).

 

 

·         The range of 30-50 dph is more appropriate in this area.

 

 

·         There would be a close relationship between the proposed dwellings and Nos 11 and 13, and fences or walls could not satisfactorily overcome the problem of overlooking.

 

 

·         The lack of space about the proposed dwellings would lead to lack of privacy or a strong sense of enclosure.

 

 

·         The provision of parking spaces could prevent turning at the end of the access drive and is an indication of too much development within the confines of the site.

 

 

·         The development would not produce a satisfactory or attractive living environment for the occupiers and would be contrary to D1, D2 and H6.

 

 

·         The proposal would have an overbearing impact on No 11 and the noise and activity of the parking and manoeuvring would detract significantly from the amenities of the occupiers of No 11, contrary to D1 and H7.

 

 

·         Advice from the Fire Safety Officer cast doubts on the appellants’ assertion that the access could accommodate a fire appliance reaching the rear of the site.

 

 

·         It has not been demonstrated that development of this land would sterilise the remainder of the land behind the houses in St Paul’s View Road.

 

 

 

 

(e)

TCP/7831/C

Mr & Mrs E Humphryes against refusal for the demolition of extensions and the construction of a three storey extension to form three flats and alterations to existing flats at Clarence House, 36 Nelson Street, Ryde

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 20 August 2003

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 2 February 2004

 

Main issues of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         The effect of the proposed extension on the appearance and character of the building itself and the Conservation Area.

 

·         The effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The visual impact of the proposed extension, owing to its greater height and mass of the existing extensions, would subsume the form and proportions of the host building to the detriment of its appearance and character.

 

·         The long side elevation with its non-traditional fenestration would be visible from the street with consequent harm to the appearance of the area.

 

·         The character of the conservation area is dependent upon the architectural integrity of the buildings it contains.

 

·         Extensions which do not adequately respect the proportions and character of the original building cause harm to the intrinsic character of the Conservation Area.

 

·         The proposal is not appropriate in scale or design to its host building and conflicts with G4, D1 and H7.

 

·         The proposal would not preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the conservation area and conflicts with B6.

 

·         The proposed extension would result in an unacceptable loss of light and outlook for the occupiers of the dwelling to the north.

 

·         The proposed windows in the north side elevation would lead to increased inter-visibility at close quarters between two buildings, leading to loss of privacy.

 

·         The proposal would cause serious harm to the residential occupiers of the neighbouring property and conflict with D1, D2 and H7.

 

 

 

 

(f)

TCP/14386/T

Mr & Mrs A J Milbank against refusal for a mobile home at Mattingley Farm, Main Road, Wellow

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 08 October 2003

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 4 February 2004

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether there is sufficient justification for an additional residential unit having regard to local and national policies which seek to prevent unnecessary development in the open countryside.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The mobile home is required to provide staff accommodation to assist with the running of the enterprise which comprises livestock and holiday accommodation.

 

·         To justify the proposal there must be an essential need for a permanent on-site presence additional to the occupiers of the farmhouse.

 

·         The limited numbers and type of livestock and only three holiday units do not come within the category of requiring essential care at short notice as set out in PPG7. 

 

·         There is insufficient justification for the mobile home, which would be in harmful conflict with S4, G1, G2 and H9.

 

(g)

TCP23380/B

Mr & Mrs G Osman against refusal of outline for residential development of Ivylands Holiday Park, Broadway, Totland

 

Officer Recommendation:

Refusal

 

Committee Decision:

Refusal (Part 1)  – 17 April 2003

 

Appeal Decision:

Dismissed – 11 February 2004

 

Main issue of the case as identified by the Inspector:

 

·         Whether the site is appropriate for residential development having regard to the development plan for the area and to all other material considerations.

 

Conclusions of the Inspector:

 

·         The site is outside the development envelope and the proposal would be in conflict with the UDP in terms of residential development.

 

·         The development would represent an alteration to the development envelope and this should normally be confined to the development plan process.

 

·         The weakening of the boundary on an ad hoc incremental basis through planning permission would undermine the objectives of preserving the Isle of Wight’s rural character whilst providing adequate housing for its residents.

 

·         The proposal would result in the loss of permanent holiday accommodation.

 

·         The designation of a permanent holiday accommodation site outside the development envelope is consistent with the overall thrust of the UDP to maintain the tourism industry as an integral and vital part of the Isle of Wight’s economy.

 

·         The UDP Inspector considered the site should remain outside the development envelope to protect it from housing development.

 

·         There is no evidence that the holiday site is not viable.

 

·         Notwithstanding there is no restricting occupancy condition, this is not sufficient basis for granting planning permission for residential development.

 

·         The weight of evidence supports the retention of Ivylands as a holiday accommodation site.

 

·         The site’s development for residential purposes would be an inappropriate extension of the development envelope in this location.

 

 

 

 

Copies of the full decision letters relating to the above appeals have been placed in the Members Room.  Further copies may be obtained from Mrs J Kendall (extension 3572) at the Directorate of Environment Services.